Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:.



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

On October 26, Jimbo Wales blocked User:Miltopia for long term disruption and then announced he was leaving until Monday and that "We can have a fight about it on Monday". The block was discussed at WP:ANI, now at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia. There was both significant support and opposition to the block. Early on October 27, User:Zscout370 unblocked Miltopia with the reason: "I checked the recent contribs and I see nothing that is blockworthy, blocking for something in April, then bolting is not a good idea." This was also discussed on ANI. User:Tom harrison reblocked "per Jimbo previously." On October 28, Jimbo Wales desysopped Zscout370 with the reason: "wheel warring - I will restore your adminship myself in a week's time assuming we talk and all goes well." This was announced and discussed at ANI where there was a significant amount of opposition to Jimbo's desysopping.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''


 * 1) Jimmy Wales will remove his local steward permissions.
 * 2) Jimmy Wales will not "block and run" as he did with Miltopia.
 * 3) Jimmy Wales will be more willing to discuss and reconsider his actions based on community input.
 * 4) Jimmy Wales will avoid using the administrator/steward tools aggressively in controversial affairs.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Jimbo Wales has abused his status as both the leader of the Wikipedia project and as a steward. Whether or not the block of Miltopia was justified, the way he went about it (blocking and leaving for a weekend) and his desysopping of Zscout370 were completely out of touch with the feelings of the community and policy. When his actions were questioned by a large number of users, he continued to enforce his views, which is not a desirable trait in a leader.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia - Discussion about all the blocks and unblock that led to desysopping
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - the current thread, and a permanent link.
 * Miltopia's block log
 * Zscout370's user rights log

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Wheel war
 * Blocking policy
 * Steward policies

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales - concerns raised an unanswered
 * ANI thread
 * Jimbo defending his actions against mounting criticism

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Elonka 06:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr.grantevans2 10:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) If this edit qualifies: Otherwise I will list with the others who endorse this summary.

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Jbeach sup 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffpw 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A.Z. 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC) user indef blocked 03:40, 29 October 2007
 * David Fuchs ( talk ) 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyking 02:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If he wants to be god-king, fine. That's his perogative. But we can't do "Oh, he's just like any other admin... PSYCHE, this time people who revert him will be desysopped!" -Amarkov moo! 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure about some of the desired outcome terms, but I endorse the summary part. — xDanielx T/C 06:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that some sort of discussion between Jimmy and the community regarding his role on the project and the deplorable actions he took the other day should definitely carried out; however, I'm not sure RfC would work as a venue for this. -- krimpet ⟲  07:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the summary but I'm not convinced that RfC is the way to go. That said, someone has to put the foot down here. I suppose those who have the least to loose are the most likely to speak up given the obvious potential consequences of even having this critical debate. EconomicsGuy 08:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Earlier in this tumultuous year, Jimmy expressed the desire to maybe exchange the mantle of god king for that of a Constitutional monarch. I think this is an excellent idea which would be better not only for him but for the community and the project as well. Of course first, we will need a constitution which clearly defines the relationship between the new monarch and his subjects. Here is as good a place to begin discussing this new !document as any. If not a constitutional convention than at least a constitutional conversation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The most critical element of this cause is the fact that there was a warning in place before the block by Jimmy Wales. Once and Forever 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse the summary and some of the desired outcomes. This event has served to illustrate problems surrounding the current ambiguity as to Jimbo's actual role and authority in every action he undertakes, and if we don't arrive at some sort of solution to that issue, this will happen again in the future.Cool moe dee 345 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse as to everything except item 1 of the desired outcome. Item 2 I limit only to the case of intentional block and running; there was nothing urgent enough about the block that it couldn't have waited until he wouldn't have to request a "forget this for a while" issue.  Indeed, posting for review but asking that a review not take place smacks of not really being open to the review in the first place.  GRBerry 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse with the caveats of GRBerry and xDanielx, and, as R.D.H., with the idea that this might serve ultimately to permit the community determine what it desires that Jimbo's role should be. Joe 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything which depletes Jimbo's ability to act arbitrarily and outside community consensus in other than Office matters will be a welcome change to Wikipedia. Doing that, and also making Arbcom proceedings public and on-the-record, and subject to community review and comment, would eliminate most of the Cabal smell which now permeates Wikipedia. Enrico Dirac 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

I make no apologies for either of my actions, which were consistent with both written policy and longstanding tradition, and which have already been enormously helpful in making clear that some policies I set down at the beginning of this project are still policies. More bans similar to the Miltopia ban are coming, because we have lately been in the unfortunate situation where various trolls have learned to game the system and wikilawyer their way into ongoing low-level nonsense to waste good people's time. Personal attacks disguised as external links, participation in trolling/stalking websites to the detriment of the project as a whole, etc.

Sorry, but no. Wikipedians take pride in being a different kind of community. This has never been an anarchy, and never will be as long as I have some say in it. My role here is to empower admins to control the quality of the content through ongoing defense of the site against all kinds of people who are not here to build an encyclopedia.

The correct venue for appeal of those upcoming bans will be to either me directly or the ArbCom, and I will stipulate as a matter of convention that in such cases (a ban by me, overturned by the ArbCom) I will defer to the ArbCom as a matter of course. Throughout the entire history of Wikipedia, I have shown myself eager to respond thoroughly and completely to all questions, and to change my mind when presented with appropriate evidence. This will not change.

Many good admins have lamented to me lately that there is a real problem with civility in Wikipedia, caused in part because we have a culture where admins have to jump through absurd hoops to get rid of clearly useless users. Defenses of "well, he made a few good edits here and there" are routinely enough to stonewall what would have been, 2 years ago, a clear and instant ejection from the project on the grounds of general trollishness.

There is currently no dispute between me and Zscout370 and we are having an ongoing conversation over this misunderstanding. I predict no further trouble between us in the future. He is a good admin in good standing.

Finally, it is entirely unclear to me whether an Rfc naming me as a party is even logically possible under our traditional legal system. My responding here is not an endorsement of this as a valid process at all. It's just me trying to be nice. :-)--Jimbo Wales 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) - Jehochman  Boo! 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Tony Sidaway 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC) This is welcome news.
 * 3) Exactly. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Durova  Charge! 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Nick 19:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Sophia  19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) The RFC produced useful results so I call it a valid process on those grounds alone.  Friday (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) FCYTravis 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) HOORAY!!!! Throw the blaggards out! ScienceApologist 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Friday; a useful response. RFCs have a very vague goal, and no enforcement provisions, so the question of whether or not this is "a valid process under our legal system" isn't really cogent. "just trying to be nice" is all we can hope for. Thanks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12)  нмŵוτн  τ  20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) (Comment. The response refers to a logical dilemma in law, which I think concerns ultra vires and a long-standing paradox of sovereignty. This dilemma is a natural and expected consequence of our governing policies. I am not suggesting that Mr. Wales be above criticism, merely that he represents a special case. Perhaps folks should acknowledge the value of the avenues, other than the RfC, for constructive criticism.) HG | Talk 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

It should have been clear that the Jimbo's ban was done as the leader of our project and not as "just another admin". When you see that Jimbo has banned someone, it should be clear that a lot of thought has gone into that ban, and the decision will not have been taken lightly. At the time of Zscouts unblock, there was quite a strong consensus for the block, so Zscout was not only going against Jimbo, he was going against the consensus. Despite many users suggesting that he reblocked Miltopia, this did not occur and another administrator had to reblock. When you overide a Jimbo ban, you should expect the possibility of being desysopped and this has happened in this case. Whether you like Jimbo or not, he has ultimate authority here, and if you start messing with that, you lose your bit.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - Jehochman  Talk 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Some of us may not agree with Jimbo's decision, but he is the one who ultimately calls the shots around here.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Corvus cornix 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Jimbo's privileged place in the project is a matter of tradition and policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) C HAIRBOY (☎) 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) ElinorD (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) &mdash; trey  omg he's back 22:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) -- Cometstyles 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Crum375 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Well said, Poss. Endorse in full. Sarah 22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13)  1 != 2  22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Rdfox 76 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) — TKD:: Talk  23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Crockspot 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Videmus Omnia  Talk  00:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18)  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) The temporary desysopping was no big deal. Friday (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20)  Gizza Discuss   &#169;  06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) --MONGO 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Oysterguitarist 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Bang on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Tony Sidaway 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC) The community has made a hash and blotto over this.  Too many self-important rules lawyers, not enough thought.  Moreover this RFC is a calmer and more appropriate environment in which to state considered opinions than Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370.  Those who call for it to be closed as contributing to, rather than helping to resolve, the drama are misguided.  Zscout370 is normally a fine admin, but sometimes people push the envelope too far and as grown-ups they shouldn't be too surprised at what happens. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) What Tony said.  Zscout did a silly thing, but there's no lasting damage there as he and Jimbo are now in dialogue.  Miltopia needed to be gone as an archetype for a certain kind of user, the kind whose drama to contribution ratio is vastly higher than we should be expected to put up with. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Sophia  18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) —Random832 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Perfectly stated, Ryan always has had a way with words. - M  ask? 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 29)  нмŵוτн τ  20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Deskana
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

This RFC will accomplish nothing. The community's views on the actions Jimbo has taken are already well detailed on the administrators noticeboard, so we will simply be restating the obvious and creating more drama. As such, this RFC is totally pointless, and is a waste of time. --Deskana (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Deskana (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) What a waste of time. Endorse  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Don't see how a RFC will accomplish anything here. Mfko 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) SqueakBox 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) C HAIRBOY (☎) 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) It just adds fuel to the anti-Wikipedia baying. And it's certainly more than a little ironic, coming from an admin who got special treatment just to get the admin bit.  Corvus cornix 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Jimbo's behavior has been awful, but an RfC isn't going to accomplish a thing. -- krimpet ⟲  22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10)  ?  Those are my thoughts on this RfC, it's a waste of time and will serve only to create more pointless drama that is potentially harmful to the community. east. 718 at 22:48, 10/28/2007
 * 11) Keep it in one place, please; this is redundant to the thread at AN/I.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) I agree, it won't accoplish anything, but Jimbo should at least read it. Jbeach sup 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) ElinorD (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) (but see below, that hasn't been discussed at the other venues.)LessHeard vanU 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Crum375 22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Whether you agree with anything that has occurred here, another page and layer of discussion won't help matters. — TKD:: Talk  23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Rdfox 76 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) There is already enough drama around here. Who knows, this could lead to nasty press (The Mzoli's incident was bad enough), and the speeding up of the eventual collapse of Wikipedia, especially as we are in the midst of fundraising. Personally, I don't want to see a head line saying some nonsense such as "Wikipedia community tries to oust founder" or  somesuch coming from a person who doesn't understand it. Regards,  Ne ra n e i   (talk)  22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Crockspot 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Videmus Omnia  Talk  00:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 21)  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Jimbo does what Jimbo wants to do. The consequences of such an attitude towards the community will not be dealt with through a RfC so this is pointless. Each editor must decide for themselves how to react to this, further attempts to change the situation regarding Jimbo's status is pointless per his own comments on this matter. Wikipedia will not be changed from the inside. An other way of saying that could be: Who is going to remove Jimbo's steward bit? As reasonable as it may be it is extremely unlikely to happen and thus this is a futile attempt to solve the problem. EconomicsGuy 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Very much so.  Gizza Discuss  &#169;  09:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) One bad decision does not an RFC make.  Jimbo's already well aware of the views of the community and further feedback is already taking place somewhere else.  This is at best redundant.  Wily D  13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) I'm going to endorse this, even though doing so means I'm participating in the RFC which I agree is pointless.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) violet/riga (t) 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Same thoughts that crossed my mind when I opened this RfC.  нмŵוτн  τ  20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by LessHeard vanU
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

This RfC will accomplish nothing. However, regarding Jimbo Wales reference to "snide remarks" as regards an edit summary, presumably the term "bolt", it should be noted that the summary field is limited and editors are forced to use phrases that might appear incivil owing to those restrictions. LessHeard vanU 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) LessHeard vanU 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Obviously true. GRBerry 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) —Random832 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Jossi
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

WP:SNOW. I call for the close of this RfC, and continue the discussion at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Rdfox 76 23:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) The sunder king 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) — TKD:: Talk  23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) SqueakBox 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Acalamari 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Bad idea to have undeleted it.  violet/riga (t) 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Crockspot 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Duplication of process, discuss don't vote, issue has its own page already at AN/I.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Aye aye.  This is silly.  Tomertalk  03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) --MONGO 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Absolutely.  Gizza Discuss  &#169;  09:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12)  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Aye. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Tim Vickers 19:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Crockspot
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

I challenge the legitimacy of this RfC. Those in "dispute" with Jimbo would be Miltopia and Zscout, neither of whom are participating in the RfC. Since Miltopia is indefinitely blocked, only one of the disputants can even certify this dispute, so this RfC cannot even open.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Crockspot 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Sick of the abuse of RfC/U that occurs all the time; RfC/U's are often passed as "certified" when they aren't.  Same kind of abuse of process we saw at CSN.  There is an ongoing discussion elsewhere, and faulty "certification" of RfC's has been used in the past to railroad other users.  Discuss, don't vote.  This is a rush to vote.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed.  This isn't even just about inappropriate use of RfC, it's pointless reduplication of discussion occurring elsewhere, and just plain silly.  There's no need to request comments when comments have been pouring in since the incident in question first happened.  If this is "process", it's a process I think we can safely dispose of.  Tomertalk  03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) SqueakBox 06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) --MONGO 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't see the point with this RfC.  Gizza Discuss  &#169;  09:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No more drama. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Requests for comment doesn't mean "Hey let's all chime in with out gripes and observations."  It is to be a part of the dispute resolution process, and if no parties are engaging it is not a certified RfC.  Kill it dead.   Keegan talk 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:WAS 4.250
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

The bottom line for me is that we are better off with Jimbo in his current role at the English language Wikipedia because even with all his mistakes (and he has made a lot this year) this community's self-governing structures are ridiculously immature and resemble nothing as much as anarchy. We are not ready as a community. Other languages like German have a legally constituted non-profit organization that raises money and represents the community. What do we have? We have a WikiMedia foundation that explicitly does not represent only the English language Wikipedia and for legal reasons disowns responsibility for the content and the administration of its policies by the volunteers. We need as a community to create an English language community nonprofit that can represent us and defend us in legal suits. (How much of your financial future do you want to risk to this hobby?) But right now, Jimbo is head of this community and in his current role he takes responsibility for its content. (With power comes responsibility.) His head is first in line in case of a lawsuit against the administrative practices and policies here at Wikipedia. We as a community need him in his current role and should be thankful that among his mistakes is taking responsibility for this legal nightmare in the first place.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) WAS 4.250 13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Crockspot 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Cool moe dee 345
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

This is my first foray into this territory, so I beg forgiveness if I should misstep in some way. That said, I think that this event has highlighted some very real conflicts that exist between Jimbo's assumed role of Grand High Ruler and the broader Wiki-culture of democracy. What Jimbo did is generally regarded as bad form from what I've gathered - you don't undertake a potentially controversial action with shaky backing in written policy immediately before making yourself deliberately unavailable without fully expecting yourself to be reverted. Jimbo's block reasoning may have been sound, but because that reasoning expanded significantly upon written policy, it would stand to reason that he ought not to act on that impetus and then request that everybody else hold off reacting to the decision to accommodate his schedule. The general principle is that if an action merits discussion afterward, it probably merited discussion beforehand, and the idea that the action itself did not cause irreversible damage cuts both ways. His further removal of Zscout's sysop privileges also stands outside of generally accepted practice (consider what would have happened if another bureaucrat had done the same thing), and the only argument to be made in favor of that action must rely on Jimbo possessing some sort of special ability to do whatever he wants. Even assuming that he HAD such ability, his exercise of it in this instance stands in stark contrast to his prior attempts to define himself as "just another editor." Personally, while I accept and applaud Jimbo's work as an advocate and public face, I question whether his continued elevated rights status is necessary or in keeping with the ethos at Wikipedia, but at a minimum I think that this is an issue that needs to be discussed in a broader forum and some form of policy or essay written that can give editors and administrators a better understanding of when Jimbo is being a person and when Jimbo is being a benevolent despot.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As you stated above, these incidents will only continue until Jimbo's role, via-a-vis the community, is more clearly defined. Let us have a reasoned discussion of the matter and not a mutiny of the sort taking place on AN/I.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Majorly  (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with Cool Moe and RDH. — xDanielx T/C 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Cool Moe Dee's calm and thoughtful analysis. DuncanHill 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Endorse this, though I'm not sure it goes far enough. GRBerry 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) (probably with GRBerry's qualification) Joe 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7)  SQL Query me!  19:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Random832
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Simply removing his steward permission, as has been suggested, would IMO be a mistake. While this one was inappropriate, emergency desysopping is sometimes necessary, and I don’t think there’s any one person who is a more appropriate one to do it in those cases. However, I think that he should consider having a separate account for “official” actions that carry the weight of leader/GodKing/whatever, in the same way as User:Danny (usually) kept his WP:OFFICE actions separate by using the alternate account User:Dannyisme. If this is not done, we all just need to resign ourselves to the fact that everything Jimbo does is going to be considered “special”, even when he doesn’t want it to. Just a suggestion / my two cents.
 * addition at 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC) - Even if he doesn’t get a separate account... if he wants to be an ordinary user in any way, Jimbo is not exempt from the summary box. A block from a checkuser isn’t a ‘checkuser block’ unless it says e.g. “sock” in the block comment. A block from an arbcom member isn’t a ban unless they say it is. A page protection isn’t an OFFICE action unless it has pp-office, and a deletion isn’t one unless it says so in the log summary.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) (and obviously also the addendum, being as i wrote it) —Random832 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Majorly  (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly agree that pressuring Jimbo to abandon his steward position is a bad idea. The tools of a steward are serious business and no steward would use them capriciously (at least on on enwiki), Jimbo included. Unnecessary hostile gesture that would at best will cause embarrassment and negative publicity. — xDanielx T/C 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed.  If Jimbo wants to mostly be just a regular user/admin, he should have a second account that he uses only when he is invoking his special powers (whatever they are).  Otherwise, the correct default assumption is that he is just a regular user/admin.  GRBerry 19:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Joe 19:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: the above endorsements do not apply to the addendum about edit summaries unless otherwise stated —Random832 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Sean William
When Jimbo Wales blocks, deletes, or protects, then it should be assumed immediately that he has more information than you do.

Jimbo does not have to be clear about this. In the same fashion that you would ask a checkuser before undoing a checkuser IP block, or asking the Arbitration Committee before undoing a ban, you need to talk to Jimbo before undoing his administrative action. This isn't revert, block, ignore time: Blocks by Jimbo more often than not products of complicated situations.

Don't wheel war with Jimbo. He knows what he's dealing with. Sean William @ 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Crockspot 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --MONGO 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Kbdank71 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) SqueakBox 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6)  Keegan talk 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I'd think that this would be obvious, but apparently not. =)  нмŵוτн  τ  20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by WJBscribe
I'm not convinced by most of the "desired outcomes" of this RfC. In my opinion #4 would not be in the best interests of the Wiki - no admin should be restricted from making bold use of their tools in controversial matters where they judge that to be in the best interests of the project. It would seem to also preclude him desysopping wheel warring admins in an emergency (as with the Daniel Brandt article deletion fiasco). I would generally agree with #3 - that  Jimbo should "be more willing to discuss and reconsider his actions based on community input" and note that Zscout has been resysopped quite promptly. I also see that Jimbo has expressly made his actions reviewable by ArbCom: "In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final." (see WikiEN-l email). Given ArbCom is largely community elected, that allows the community far more review of Jimbo than has been traditionally possibe, effectively meaning he is subject to same review process as everyone else.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) WjBscribe 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Majorly  (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Well put. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Has Jimbo given up his previously-claimed right to dissolve Arbcom? My endorsement of this summary is conditional on a clarification of this. —Random832 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Point of information
It is noted that ArbCom can enact bans. It is asserted that due process was not followed because this was not ArbCom. Jimbo is an arbitrator, he also created ArbCom, and he rarely if ever does anything even remotely controversial without discussing it with other arbitrators. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.