You wrote in 2012:

The Wikimedia Foundation has zero collaboration with the government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a totally independent organization. And it is absolutely wrong to say that I am "helping the Kazakh regime whitewash its image". I am a firm and strong critic. At the same time, I'm excited by the work of volunteers, and I believe - very strongly - that an open and independent Wikipedia will be the death knell for tyranny in places like Kazakhstan. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it is absolutely silly to suggest that I'm in any way actively supporting tyrants.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How's that working out? The NY Times writes (3 December 2015):

Government officials in Kazakhstan are borrowing a page from China, quietly devising their own version of China’s so-called Great Firewall to unscramble encrypted web and mobile traffic as it flows in and out of Kazakh borders.

... Unlike with China, which filters data through an expensive and complex digital infrastructure known as the Great Firewall, security experts say Kazakhstan is trying to achieve the same effect at a lower cost. The country is mandating that its citizens install a new “national security certificate” on their computers and smartphones that will intercept requests to and from foreign websites.

That gives officials the opportunity to read encrypted traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, in what security experts call a “man in the middle attack.”

As a result, Kazakh telecom operators, and government officials, will be privy to mobile and web traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, bypassing encryption protections known as S.S.L., or Secure Sockets Layer, and H.T.T.P.S., technology that encrypts browsing sessions and is familiar to users by the tiny padlock icon that appears in browsers.

Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain further what you mean by your question "How's that working out?" The terrible recent developments in Kazakhstan are to be deplored and opposed, as with their human rights record stretching back for many years. There is very good reason to think that a strong and independent Wikipedia (along with an open Internet generally) will be the death knell for such regimes, and this is a fight which will take decades.

In terms of this recent initiative, which effectively mandates a "man in the middle" attack, I will be campaigning with the major Internet providers globally to blacklist the Kazakh certificate and to improve and strengthen MITM protection via certificate pinning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By 'how's that working out', I meant 'how is [an open and independent Wikipedia] working out [in terms of being the death knell for tyranny in places like Kazakhstan]'. A knell is a loud sounding or ringing that happens when death is imminent, rather than 'will take decades'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will take decades, particularly in areas that are mostly neglected by liberal democracies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you claimed in 2012 that 'Wikibilim is a totally independent organization'. Wasn't there a question about that? Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any questions about that. It remains true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘ “Kazaksha Wikipedia” project is implemented under the auspices of the Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim Massimov, head of “Wikibilim” public fund Rauan Kenzhekhanuly said in an interview for PM.kz site.’ [1] — Official web site of Kazakhstan prime minister Karim Massimo. Further reading: [2], [3], the December 23 2012 online Examiner article Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales denies Kazakhstan connection, and this Wales talk page thread, in which Wales participated, entitled Kazakhstan government support for Kazakh Wikipedia. Factoid: Currently 50% of Wikibilim’s trustees are paid government employees. Writegeist (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely false that Kazakh language Wikipedia is a project of the Government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter. As of the last time I checked, Wikibilim employees do not edit Wikipedia. It is easy to piece together misleading quotes to try to imply things that aren't true - but it's easier to just tell the truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By flatly contradicting the Kazakhstan prime minister’s official statement, you are saying that either he doesn’t know what his own government is doing or he’s lying on his office’s website (perhaps calculating that outside Kazakhstan the only likely challenge to the lie would be an unsubstantiated one from someone whose veracity on this page in relation to Kadazhstan had already been thrown into question by that same someone's own words, i.e. (1) “Past connection to the Kazakh dictatorship" - total and utter and complete bullshit. I have no past connection of any kind to the Kazakh dictatorship. — Jimbo Wales, Jimbotalk, 14 December 2014. (2) “I’ve been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there [ …] I'm going in December and I'm gonna give the award in the presence of the Prime Minister …" — Jimbo Wales, 2011 closing ceremony speech at Wikimania 2011)

Also of interest here: Before he became president of Wikibilim, Rauan Kenzhekhanuly (first recipient of the aforementioned Wikipedian of the Year award) was first secretary at Kazakhstan’s embassy in Moscow and head of Kazakhstan’s government-controlled propagandist TV operation, which was launched by the daughter of Nursultan Nazarbayev. Oh. Who he? President of Kazakhstan.

Wiikibilim is funded by Samruk-Kazyna, Kazakhstan’s sovereign wealth fund. The state is its sole shareholder. Chairman of S-K’s board when Wikibilim was set up: Timur Asqaruly Kulibayev. Who he? Husband of Dinara Nursultanovna. And who she? President Nazarbayev’s daughter. Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he says that, then he's lying. This surprises you?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat more than if you are, as I’m more familiar with your track record than with Massimov’s.

You say that Massimo is lying; that there’s no state control exercised in this instance by a government that’s notorious for control and censorship of information and the media, and for suppression of free speech; and that Wikibillim is independent of the government that funds it, fills half the seats on its board of trustees with government employees, and selects 100 of its users to receive free laptops in return for transcribing and writing government-approved articles, none of which address Kazakhstan’s record on human rights or suppression of independent media. Am I surprised you say that? Not in the least.

By the way, FYI, as apparently you are unaware, your unsupported assertion that Massimov is a liar violates the BLP policy, which applies to this page just as it does anywhere on Wikipedia. (For more information on Wikipedia’s BLP policy, refer to WP:BLP.) Writegeist (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing. Mr. Wales has just said that everyone in Kazakhstan who runs the Wikipedia project there, and says it is backed and funded by the state, is lying. Instead the truth is as Wales presents it - that Kazakh Wikipedia is independent of the Kazakh government. Don't believe your own lying eyes kids. Again, Republican primary debate levels of astonishing.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. If you put words in my mouth, you can make it seem like just about anything. There are very serious concerns and problems with the Wikibilim organization, but it remains the case that the Kazakh language Wikipedia is not a project of the government. If Massimov says that it is, he's lying. If he's concerned about that as a BLP violation, then he's free to complain. I have not said that Wikibilim is independent of the government that funds it - it is not. What I have said is that Wikibilim is completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation and of me. I have no connection with the Kazakh government, despite the ongoing pretense by people who know better. I oppose them firmly. I have had contact with them in the past, and I would imagine that I will again - to lobby for change. I will not apologize for that, nor will I allow dishonest people to portray opposition as support.

There is a much more interesting conversation to be had. Rather than dishonestly trying to pin something on me, a rather ridiculous thing to do, it would be better to show some genuine concern for the people of Kazakhstan, and suggest genuine ways that we can help in the current situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Wikibilim runs the Kazakh Wikipedia. Wikibilim is entirely funded and run by the Kazkh government and senior Kazakh government bureaucrats. The vast majority of the Kazakh Wikipedia is articles imported from the government's official propaganda encyclopedia. The Kazakh government's academy of arts and sciences runs "fact checking and quality control" on the Kazakh Wikipedia. The Kazakh Wikipedian of the year you named was prior to that award, and since, a rising star in the repressive firmament of the Kazakh regime. And your response to people who say this shows the Kazakh government runs the Kazakh Wikipedia is to call them "liars." It's astonishing you get away with such counterfactual claims. At any rate, this is like talking about the nuclear triad with Donald Trump. I'm out.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Anyone of reasonable intelligence who has been paying attention to this thread can see where the porkies are.

@Jimbo Wales. Question: did you ever actually pay the Kazakh state apparatchik the much trumpeted $5,000 that supposedly went with his Wikipedia of the Year award? A straightforward, factually correct reply please. A simple yes or no will do. Thank you. Then I’m done with you here.

Oh, one other thing. You wrote above, on 15 December, “Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter.” (Emphasis added.) Wikibilim’s own CC submission states: “Recognition of «Wikibilim» as a Wikipedia’ local chapter in Kazakhstan is in progress.” [4] Obviously there were plans for Wikibilim to become a local chapter. What happened to its application? Why were the plans permanently scrapped? Writegeist (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see there's an article HTTP Public Key Pinning, and more information on MITM attacks at Transport Layer Security (some copypasted from Stackexchange, according to a tag there...). I don't really understand it though, or how to apply it here. Key pinning is apparently already being bypassed in the Chromium browser to allow the actions that our corporations (and perhaps the Kazakh officials) call "content inspection" - wouldn't a Kazakh end up being unable to do anything online unless he disabled it such a way? And as for blacklisting certificates - how do you blacklist every certificate the Kazakh government could obtain? Wnt (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, they are distributing a certificate to everyone in Kazakhstan. If that one gets blacklisted, they could get another one, and distribute that one, but... I'll be looking for technical advice as to the most effective thing that we (and other internet providers of various kinds) can do to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is in flux. [5] I don't know nearly enough about TLS to understand whether a third party site can figure out which top level certificate authority issued a certificate, or how much data it knows about you from that, though I would suspect the worst. But if Kazakhstan actually does execute a MITM attack against a connection, can't they request whatever certificate they want from whomever they want to apply at the point past the "Firewall", as if they were the computer owner, thereby concealing their role? Wnt (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way certificates work is that the creator generates a pair of keys—private and public. Everyone can get the public key and can use it to check messages signed with the private key. Your computer and/or browser has a list of trusted certificate authorites, and a method to check the trust has not been revoked. The browser will establish an encrypted connection with a web server, but the browser will fill the screen with warnings if the server is not using a certificate from a trusted authority. Presumably the Kazakhstan plan is that each citizen would install a Kazakhstan authority as trusted. Then the government could MITM encrypted sessions—citizen computer to government proxy would be encrypted using the Kazakhstan certificate, and proxy to target web server (say Wikipedia) would be encrypted using the Wikipedia certificate. That is how a company web proxy works when a company workstation establishes an encrypted connection with an external web server such as Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Kazakh language Wikipedia

You wrote "It is completely false that Kazakh language Wikipedia is a project of the Government of Kazakhstan." (06:02, 16 December 2015).

Let's take a look.The English Wikipedia has an article, Zhanaozen massacre, describing a labour protest where 14 civilians were killed by police. The state described the killed as "hooligans". On the Kazakh Wikipedia, the same article is entitled Жаңаөзен оқиғасы, which translates roughly as "Zhanaozen Story". In English it's a massacre, in Kazakh it's just a story. The lead of the English-language article notes: "The massacre was a stark illustration of the country's poor human rights record under President Nursultan Nazarbayev." The Kazakh article mentions Nazarbayev by name only once: "On December 22, a special visit was made by President Nursultan Nazarbayev who arrived in the Mangistau region."

The largest section of the English article details the testimony disclosed during the investigations after the shootings. It generally focuses on the point of view of the protesters and of outside watchdog groups. The largest section of the Kazakh article details the testimony of the General Prosecutor's Office, which describes the protesters as having engaged in "misconduct", and that "the suppression of the riots" was necessary "for the protection of civilians". The hooligans were participating in "mass disorder". And that's why 64 people were shot.

Peter Damian (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Kazakh language Wikipedia aids censorship

And as I have pointed out to you before, the development of the Kazakh encyclopedia is part of the process of 'Kazakhisation', i.e. to move both the culture and the language of Kazakhstan away from Russian (a quarter of the population are ethnically Russian) to Kazakh. The department of education has excluded many Russian classics from its instructional program, and there has been a deliberate imposition of Kazakh culture, including Nazarbayev’s brainchild, the six volume national encyclopedia, which began publication in 1999, and which has now been incorporated into the Kazakh Wikipedia. As Bhavna Dave put it, the primary value of the Kazakh language is as an instrument of nationalisation.

The practical effect of the language program is discrimination and censorship. Discrimination, because the Kazakh constitution holds that all public jobs require knowledge of the Kazakh language, which amounts to excluding Russians from the public sector. Beginning in the late 1990s, candidates for the presidency were required to pass a test for proficiency in Kazakh language and culture.

Censorship, because no one understands the Kazakh language outside Kazakhstan. As long as Russian remains the language of inter-ethnic communication in the Kazakhstan, it is a means of opening its speakers to ideas circulating outside the country on TV and on the Internet. While the internet can supposedly route its signal around any obstacle, it can’t help people understand that signal. Once Nazarbayev’s program to focus the teaching of Kazakh on the next generation is realised, no one in the country will understand external media. There is no need to censor something that no one can understand. “Looking at the situation in the long-term perspective, if Kazakh language policy is successfully implemented in the same direction at a similar pace, in few generations we are going to have more and more people who have access to only part of the story unless they learn other languages”, says my friend Yevgeniya Plakhina, a freelance journalist who contributes to the banned opposition newspaper Respublika. “Access to other sources might be also blocked because Kazakhstan has very restrictive mass media and internet legislation. It is clever to say that if you show part of the story it does not mean it is lies”.

Peter Damian (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most useful exercises of freedom of expression I've seen, the interlibrary loan service Sci-Hub, actually started in Kazakhstan.^[6] So that country is not always behind the U.S. - and sometimes, they're out ahead. Wnt (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Damian, while I share most of your concerns here, I disagree with your take on the Kazakh language issue. They are indeed downplaying Russian, but that's no different from the vast majority of post-Soviet states who want to distance themselves from their former colonial masters and stress their own national identity. In contrast, they are pushing hard for better English levels, for example Nazarbayev University requires at least band 6 in IELTS. Part of this is for geopolitical reasons (Nazo is nervous about Russia eventually seeking to annex parts of north Kazakhstan with Russian majorities) and part for pragmatic business reasons: 2 devaluations in 22 months have shown them that their economy is over-dependent on natural resource prices and Russia and they're seeking to diversify away from that. Valenciano (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's very helpful - I didn't know about the English thing. Though this does not detract from my main point: that projects such as individual language Wikipedias can often conflict with the broader aims of the Wikimedia movement - particularly opposition to censorship. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibilim: the unanswered questions

Jimbo Wales, apparently you missed these questions, which were buried in a preceding thread, so I’m giving them more prominence here. And pinging you.

Q1: Did you ever actually pay the Kazakh state apparatchik the $5,000 that supposedly went with his Wikipedia of the Year award?

Q2: You wrote above, on 15 December, “Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter.” (Emphasis added.) Wikibilim’s own CC submission states: “Recognition of «Wikibilim» as a Wikipedia local chapter in Kazakhstan is in progress.” [7] Obviously there were plans for Wikibilim to become a local chapter. What happened to its application? Why were the plans permanently scrapped?

Writegeist (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: No.

Q2: You would have to ask them and people directly involved in the chapter submission process. If I had to guess, when it became clear that such an application would be very unlikely to be approved, they dropped further action on it. But I'm not directly involved. If the matter came to the board, I would strongly encourage the board to not approve the application without some major changes and some thorough due diligence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: Thank you for clearing that up.

Q2: I note your emphasis on "due diligence". It’s interesting that Nartay Ashim, Wikibilim’s “National Coordinator”, is listed among the attendees at the 2012 Wikimedia Conference Chapters meeting (so apparently the WMF were already treating Wikibilim as a chapter); and that the WMF gave Wikibilim $16,000 for the 2012 Turkic Wikimedia Conference in Kazakhstan. Was that because the WMF board had failed in its due diligence? I.e. had the WMF failed to grasp that the Kazakh Wikipedia is a project of the Kazakh government?

When you’d accepted the official invitation to Kazakhstan from Yerlan Idrissov (their ambassador to the US), Khazak TV announced you’d thanked the Kazakh government for “creating conditions for significant achievements in the development of the Kazakh language Wikipedia”, and that you’d announced your intention to visit (as you did on Wikipedia). You didn’t go; and neither, as you now confirm, did you ever pay the promised $5,000 to the Kazakh state apparatchik who won your Wikipedian of the Year award. Was that because it wasn’t until after you'd thanked the Kazakh government that you did your due diligence? Writegeist (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met nor spoken nor even heard of Yerlan Idrissov. I have never accepted any official invitation to Kazakstan. I have never spoken to anyone at the Kazakh embassy in the US. I have never spoken to Kazakh TV.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh TV reported "The Kazakhstan Ambassador to the US Yerlan Idrissov has already handed over an official invitation to Mr. Wales. Having accepted the invitation, Jimmy Wales thanked the Kazakh government for creating conditions for significant achievements in the development of the Kazakh language Wikipedia." One of you is not telling the truth. Peter Damian (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up the issue of “due diligence” and I’d like to return to that for a moment. Wikibilim’s “National Coordinator” is listed among the attendees at the 2012 Wikimedia Conference Chapters meeting (i.e. the WMF accorded Wikibilim chapter status even though it was not a chapter); and the WMF also gave Wikibilim $16,000 for the 2012 Turkic Wikimedia Conference in Kazakhstan. Was that because the WMF board had not done its due diligence? I.e. had failed to grasp that the Kazakh Wikipedia is a project of the Kazakh government?

At Wikimania 2011 you announced the inaugural “Global Wikipedian of the Year award, in my opinion, given by me personally”. 2011 You also announced you’d been connecting with the Kazakh government and talking to the Kazakh prime minister (the man you recently called a liar), and that you'd be going to Kazakhstan to present the award in his august presence: ”I’ve been following the story of Kazakh Wikipedia [ … ] and I also I've been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there. [ …] I'm going in December and I'm gonna give the award in the presence of the Prime Minister.” (Same link.) The honored Global Wikipedian of the Year was a Kazakh government operative who ran the government-funded organization tasked with giving Kazakhstan's heavily censored and propagandist national encyclopedia the Wikipedia imprimatur of respectability and independence., and with further adding government-approved content. Presumably you had not done your due diligence, as otherwise you would have known what this fellow was. So when you broke your promise to go to Kazakhstan, and also broke the promise to pay the $5,000 that accompanied the award, was it because you had done your due diligence in the meantime (or someone had done it for you), and it had finally dawned on you that the Kazakh Wikipedia is a project of the Kazakh government?

Above you say: “I have never met nor spoken nor even heard of Yerlan Idrissov"— Kazakhstan's ambassador to the US; and "I have never accepted any official invitation to Kazakstan. I have never spoken to anyone at the Kazakh embassy in the US.” (Emphasis added.)

At Wikimania 2012 you said: “I met with the Ambassador of Kazakhstan this morning.”

Which of these two statements is the truth?

Writegeist (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the second one. I have no recollection of it, and I can say I certainly didn't have any sort of formal sit down meeting. In a line up of dignitaries, it is of course possible. As I have said before, I misspoke if I said in 2011 that I had talked to the Kazakh Prime Minister at that time. I had talked to his office, an Australian guy named Catallus. And since then, I have met with the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan and spoke to him about his country's dreadful human rights record. I've also had, with Orit Kopel of the Jimmy Wales Foundation for Freedom of Information, a formal meeting with the Kazakh Ambassador to discuss freedom of expression. I will continue to have meetings with dignitaries and officials from many countries to lobby for positive change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When someone makes untrue claims about themselves and then backtracks with the euphemism much favored by politicians caught in a lie (“I misspoke”) it leaves an impression of duplicity that’s hard to eradicate.

I note your response evaded my points about due diligence, and I won't press you further. Instead let's examine your claim (in your reply to Peter Damian in the "More contradictions" section) that the Kazakh regime was “interested in change” in 2012— which you cite in support of your “diplomatic gestures to open a discussion”.

In a 2012 article titled “Change put on hold in Nazabayev’s Kazakhstan” Luca Anceschi clearly stated the Kazakh regime’s intractable opposition to change at that time:

• “[There is] a sense of political stagnation that pervades today’s Kazakhstan. A sense that much-needed change has been postponed until the inevitable, though not yet imminent, leadership change [. . .] the (authoritarian) impetus of the 1990s and the 2000s has been replaced by the immobility typical of the end of an era [. . .] It is possible to identify the precise moment at which Kazakhstan entered this phase of possibly irreversible decline, and that is Nazarbayev’s decision to run in the snap presidential election of early 2011 [. . .] Two things mark the post-election landscape: the appearance of a more stable regime and the neutralisation of every form of internal opposition. The neutralisation happened quickly, and targeted both discontent within the elite, as with the radicalisation of society, which in the recent months had come to be viewed as even more dangerous [. . .] Kazakhstan’s future outlook, in this sense, does not appear bright, as the rapid deterioration of whatever little internal dialogue had survived 20 years of fictitious liberalisation is now exacerbating the socio-political stagnation into which the regime slid in 2011 [and] change for Kazakhstan is postponed to a later date.” (Emphasis added.) [8]

Three years later Anceschi would write that the regime still "seeks to sanitise the local media landscape in its print, broadcast, and digital segments.”

This Central Asian scholar’s informed views (which I trust you won’t rubbish, as you did those of a Chinese dissident, as “loud-mouthed rhetoric”) contradict the claim that the regime was “interested in change”. They were interested in it only insofar as it was anathema—they saw it as antithetical to their tyrannical socio-political ideology and self-interest, and blocked it accordingly.

The regime's obdurate opposition to change is further evident in the Human Rights Watch World Reports on Kazakhstan for 2011, 2012, and 2013:

• 2011: “During its 2010 chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Kazakhstan's human rights record was marred by continued disappointments. Restrictive amendments to media and Internet laws remained, and a number of websites and weblogs were blocked on a regular basis.” (Emphasis added.)

• 2012: “Kazakhstan failed to carry out long-promised human rights reforms in the year following its chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Instead, its rights record suffered further setbacks. Control of the penitentiary systems moved from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, putting prisons back in police control, and a new restrictive religion law was adopted. Websites were blocked and legal amendments limiting media freedoms remained. A union lawyer was imprisoned for six years for speaking out on workers’ rights.” (Emphasis added.)

• 2013: “Kazakhstan’s human rights record seriously deteriorated in 2012, following violent clashes In December 2011 between police and demonstrators, including striking oil workers, in western Kazakhstan. Authorities blamed outspoken oil workers and political opposition activists for the unrest. Freedom of assembly is restricted and dozens were fined or sentenced to administrative arrest in early 2012 for participating in peaceful protests. A restrictive law on religious freedoms remained in force. Media remains under tight control and there were attacks on independent journalists.” (Emphasis added.)

You mentioned media reports asserting the Kazakh regime's interest in change. In the light of the above, it would be interesting to see them. Were they Kazakh state media?

Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Writegeist:

You are essentially calling Jimmy a liar, and generally harassing him in this entire 6,000 word section. I'll be mostly out-of-touch until the new year. I hope you can make amends before then. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are unwelcome on this page. Happy holidays. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones:: I think you're over-reacting. There is no doubt that the Kazakh government have been responsible for serious human right infringements. And how much they control the kk.wp is an interesting question. Whether or not it is Jimbo's "fault", as a member of the WMF board he is the right sort of person to pose these questions. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Wales may or may not be—and I see no need to hazard a guess here—he's certainly not such a precious snowflake as to be incapable of conducting a robust dialogue without officious, dishonest, patronizing, and threatening interventions by Smallbones. Writegeist (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just get to the point. Do you have particular actions to propose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already got to the point: to be blunt, the takeout from my post is that you appear untrustworthy when it comes to facts.

For further clarification, and at the risk of belaboring the point:

You’re no fool. You successfully hosted soft porn on the Internet. You were one of the people who started an online encyclopedia compiled by volunteers. You parlayed that into public speaking engagements and some useful social climbing in London and elsewhere. And you cast yourself in the role of bold free speech activist and “lobbyist for change”. Yet you stand shoulder to shoulder with representatives of a despotic regime when they mount an odious public PR exercise to whitewash their image in the eyes of the world, and on that stage and under that international gaze you coolly accept fistfuls of their money without also taking the opportunity of that public platform to utter so much as one word of protest against their vile human rights abuses, including lethal oppression of free speech—which, coming from you, and given the circumstances, would have put these crimes front and center in the global media. Further, you present an award to an operative of another repressive regime, also without uttering a word of condemnation; then also make plans to travel to the country to pay money to the recipient of your award in the presence of the country’s dignities, and when you announce these plans you inflate your importance by gulling an eager audience with a story of communicating with the host government at the highest level—with the prime minister, no less—when in fact the PM’s office had palmed you off onto some Australian guy; and then you don’t even go—thus missing another outstanding opportunity for public condemnation of the host regime’s records on human rights and free speech.

When you don’t walk the walk, your talk is further devalued. We’ve already seen pronouncements from you that are evasive and less than honest. E.g., to take a recent one: you “misspoke” about a chat with the Kazakh PM that never actually took place, just as Hillary Clinton “misspoke” about arriving under fire in Sarajevo, which never happened, and Richard Blumenthal “misspoke” about fighting in Vietnam. (To be fair though, it’s easy to mistake an untroubled stroll across an airport for ducking and diving through sniper fire, or being in America for fighting in Vietnam, or speaking to some Australian guy for speaking to the Kazakh PM.) Also, in 2012 in Washington, you said that you had met with the the Kazakh ambassador that morning. Later you denied saying it. When provided with the recording in which you said it, you backtracked, saying you couldn’t remember.

So for someone who isn’t a fool you sure do make yourself look like one; and by repeatedly underestimating the intelligence of well-informed people, you treat them like fools also. There are well-informed people among your Wikipedia volunteer force on whose work you have built your career. You present yourself as the public figurehead of their enterprise. They deserve a figurehead who doesn't appear foolish.

You ask what action I propose. I propose you either abandon the posture of advocating for human rights in general and free speech in particular or play the part with real commitment, conviction, courage, integrity, honesty, and good judgment. (Yes, yes, I know about the Jimmy Wales Foundation--and about the history of its creation.) Another proposal: escape the clutches of whatever amateurs appear to be advising you—to attend the China event, for example, when people who actually know what they’re talking about urged a boycott—and consult with experts who can give you knowledgeable, well-judged guidance on how to walk the walk.

Moving on briefly:

(1) You state on this page: “There is no trademark agreement [between Wikibilim and the WMF to revoke.”

(2) A post in August 2011 on Meta re. Wikibilim’s application for chapter status states: 8 June 2011 – Signed Trademark License Agreement with Wikimedia Foundation Inc.” [9]

Point: These two conflicting statements cannot both be true. Question: Which is the truth? Proposed action: answer (1) or (2)

(3) “promises from aides . . . that [the Kazakh regime] were interested in change.” Aides of the regime? Proposed action: reply yes/no; if “no”, who were they? I ask because you also said:

(4) “[there were] news reports at the time that [the Kazakh regime] were interested in change.” Point: this appears false in light of the evidence (some of which I presented above) of the regime’s well-documented, implacable opposition to change. Proposed action: diffs please.

Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More contradictions

1. You say you will not "allow dishonest people to portray opposition as support". Yet you say at the Wikimania 2012 conference (time code 23:45 onwards) that you are going to give the award [to Rauan] 'in the presence of the President and Prime Minister'. So that's opposition, and it would be really "dishonest" to portray your giving an award in the presence of the Kazakh President and Prime Minister as support? I don't follow this.
2. "I have not said that Wikibilim is independent of the government that funds it - it is not." But you say in your interview with Yevgeniya – now ironically deleted from the internet, probably by the Kazakh authorities – that "Wikibilim is absolutely independent. They do not [control] and do not [manage] the Kazakh-Wikipedia", and you say that while there was a government grant, it was issued without any obligations [regarding] the Wikipedia content (which Wikibilim in any [event] does not control). You also concede in that interview that the funds were used to import the Kazakh encyclopedia, but as I have pointed out above, that encyclopedia is an instrument of nationalisation, whose effects are both discrimination and censorship.

Peter Damian (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic gestures to open a discussion, given promises from aides and general news reports at the time that they were interested in change, is not support for a tyrannical regime, but support for change.

I don't understand your second point at all. It seems dependent on severe and deliberate misinterpretation of multiple parties. Wikibilim does not control and does not manage the Kazakh language Wikipedia. Indeed, when I last checked, employees are forbidden from editing Wikipedia. If that has changed, that's interesting and useful information - I haven't checked recently. There have been other instances of previous encyclopedias being imported with permission into Wikipedia (one in Kerala comes to mind) and yes - they generally come in with severe biases that the community needs to correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Indeed, when I last checked, employees are forbidden from editing Wikipedia." - Jimmy Wales, Dec. 25 2015. In January 2013 you were expressly told that Wikibilim employees (that is, Kazakh government employees) were editing the Kazakh Wikipedia. When the evidence of Wikibilim honcho Nartay Ashim editing the Kazakh Wikipedia was presented to you, you responded. "He edits on his own time. Lots of people do that." They were never forbidden from editing Wikipedia (and it's strange that you would claim to know so much about internal policy of an organization you otherwise have claimed you know little about - never-mind that that's not the policy). At any rate, the Kazakh Wikipedia is now run by the Kazakh government. It was run by the Nazarbayev regime at the time you rewarded the Kazakh government propaganda official Rauan Kenzhekhanuly with "Wikipedian of the year." It is still run by the Nazarbayev regime. It will be run by the regime for the foreseeable future. That has been the succesful Nazarbayev regime strategy for Wikipedia - and a model that's incredibly easy for other dictators to emulate, thanks to the Wikimedia's own policies and actions. Or perhaps better: Non-actions.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. When I was informed, I inquired. When I inquired, I was told (a) that he was editing in his own time (very common in such organizations, for example chapter employees are often active wikipedians) and I was told (b) that this would stop. I'd like to ask you: what actions are you recommending at this time?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd pull the plug on the servers if I'd let my supposed encyclopedia be coopted as part of a propaganda exercise of a more than usually unsavory dictator. Then I'd begin a major initiative at board level to hire area specialists to supervise the various small Wikipedia's that are completely unsupervised and are tailor made for the brand-sweetening exercises of thugs like Nazarbayev. Language and academic expertise would be required. Ignorance is only bliss to the criminally arrogant and irresponsible.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dependency matrix

Of course you know very well that it sounds cool if you say they are "completely independent" while omitting to make clear that you mean completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. To help out, here is a matrix connecting the four different entities.

This chart is misleading and confusing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to indicate where you think it is misleading and confusing - thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wales probably means that it doesn't give any indication of the direction of the dependency. In other words, when we look at the chart, are you suggesting that the government of Kazakhstan is entirely dependent on Wikibilim for the survival of the government? Not likely, but it could be interpreted that way. Whole milch (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The box you are reading is almost certainly meant to be read in this direction "Wikibilim is entirely dependent on the Kazakh government" - and that's certainly true at some level (though the relationship is via a grant that I'm told had no content stipulations in it, one can assume that Wikibilim employees whatever their personal views would not feel comfortable and secure writing in an NPOV way about human rights in Kazakhstan, etc.). --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I thought your position was that Wikibilim was entirely independent of the government? Peter Damian (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not my position. Never has been since they secured their major funding from Samruk-Kazna. I wish they had never sought nor received that funding, although it is understandable that they would naturally turn to their government for a grant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibilim employees forbidden from editing Wikipedia?

"Indeed, when I last checked, [Wikbilim] employees are forbidden from editing Wikipedia." - Jimmy Wales, Dec. 25 2015. I already pointed out above the Kazakh Wikipedia article on the Zhanaozen massacre, a labour protest where 14 civilians were killed by police and 60 or more were wounded in the shooting. The article calls the same event Жаңаөзен оқиғасы, loosely "Zhanaozen Story". I should have added that the article was almost exclusively written by user:Ashina, who is an active administrator on the Kazakh Wikipedia to this day. Weirdly, Wikipedia's rules on censorship forbid me from mentioning the real life name of 'Ashina', but his occupation is Head of the Astana office at Bilim Media Group, where his work includes Government relations and communications. Previously he was employed in other government and corporate communications positions. The justification for not employing real names is that dictatorships may bring pressure on Wikipedia editors. But of course this equally works the other way round. Wikipedia secrecy rules make it difficult to identify when governments have infiltrated Wikipedia projects.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Kazakh government's line has not been that nothing untoward happened in Zhanaozen. Nazarbayev sacked his son-in-law Kulibayev over the affair, and governor Krymbek Kusherbayev (Rauan's erstwhile boss in Mangystau, now his boss again in Kyzylorda) resigned when Nazarbayev visited, presumably to help Nazarbayev save face. Kusherbayev certainly never fell out of favour with Nazarbayev. [11]

I can only report on what I've been told. Thank you for looking into it further. What action do you propose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed action

I think it's really up to the WMF, but here is a suggestion. Why can't WMF hire a person, based outside Kazakhstan, but proficient in the Kazakh language, to make more accurate translations of articles in the KZ Wikipedia, so that the WMF can assess for accuracy and so on. The WMF should also investigate the administration of the encyclopedia to ensure that it really is independent, and not run by Wikibilim or the government or whoever. Or something on those lines. Intended outcome: determine whether the encyclopedia really is independent. If not, remove its charter. Peter Damian (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What 'charter' do you mean?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Peter Damian (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, no organization in Kazakhstan has permission to use the Wikipedia trademarks. As with every language version of Wikipedia, Kazakh language Wikipedia is hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers and is 100% under the legal control of the WMF. There is no trademark agreement to revoke with anyone.

I'm surprised this organizational information isn't known to you, but assuming good faith, I suppose what you are suggesting is that the WMF could remove the logo from the website? That wouldn't do very much, since it's all about the domain name and the inbound links. Other options that you might be suggesting, such as closing down the Kazakh language Wikipedia (or deleting the content to start over or something like that) don't strike me as particularly helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in the WMF organization, for from it, but it seems to me that something called the 'KZ Wikipedia' (Уикипедия) is borrowing the Wikimedia brand somehow. What about establishing the facts first, namely my suggestion of hiring an expert translator. I have used Google translate to look at some of the articles and they do not seem to be neutral. Furthermore, WMF could easily investigate who actually is controlling the content of KZ Wikipedia. After the investigation, a decision could be made whether or not to continue with the KZ encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note here that it has a whacking great Wikimedia/Wikipedia logo on the top left, and says 'A Wikimedia project' on the bottom right. Peter Damian (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Kazakh Wikipedia is under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation in the same way as the English Wikipedia is. It isn't "borrowing" the brand any more than the English Wikipedia is. You are forgiven for misunderstanding, given the level of misinformation from people who claim/hint otherwise. In terms of the WMF conducting an investigation, I support the idea. Too many of the people in this conversation who are making claims seem to have as their primary interest attacking me, rather than genuine concern for freedom of expression in Kazakhstan.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an ambiguity in the term 'Kazakh Wikipedia'. You take it to mean the servers. I take it to mean what is sometimes called the 'mind and management' of an entity. But if you think it is appropriate for WMF to conduct an investigation, that would be a good start. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, who is the 'mind and management' of any Wikipedia? It usually isn't the chapters, for example. It's usually an ArbCom or the ArbCom+active admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a separate question here. There was a "fast track" approval of the trademark licence agreement with WikBilim in 2011. Something very out of the ordinary must have happened for Wikibilim to get this, less than a month after they first communicated with WMF, and barely a month after Wikibilim was established. Do you know anything about this? See the timeline below. Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know little more than your timeline, and I would not have been able to construct that today without a lot of work. I can say this - nothing strikes me as out of the ordinary at all about any of it. Indeed, since that time, we have become more liberal with allowing user groups to use the marks for events, etc. And I think we should be even more liberal than we are today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline, 2011

• 4 May 2011 – The registration of WikiBilim Public Foundation (per Wikimedia Meta page) takes place.
• June 2011 - Nartay Ashim contacts Wikimedia Foundation. WMF agreed to send Mr Ting Chen. It was June 2011. We tried to involve many parties as we could. We communicated with the business and academia, research centers. Kazakh Encyclopedia agreed to donate paper based materials, they are not even old. It is National encyclopedia. We involved the students from International IT University in Almaty.
• 1 June 2011 – According to statements made on Wikimedia Meta, Nokia Kazakhstan signs an agreement to sponsor a Wikipedia article writing contest (awarding mobile phones to winning writers).
• 8 June 2011 – According to the Wikimedia Meta page, WikiBilim signs a Trademark License Agreement with Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
• 16 June 2011 – Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees Chair, Ting Chen, visits Almaty, Kazakhstan. On a Wikimedia Meta page, WikiBilim indicates it received a letter of support from the CEO of the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation, providing financial sponsorship to WikiBilim (including laptops for winning participants in the Wikipedia article writing contest). WikiBilim conducts a press conference (with participation of Ting Chen, Murat Abenov (member of Kazakhstan parliament and future Deputy Minister of Education and Science), Bauyrzhan Zhakyp (Chief Editor of the government-published Kazakh Encyclopedia), and A. Tutykin (Deputy Head of Kazcontent JSC).

"Ting Chen of the Wikimedia Foundation attending the press conference said that 'the Foundation is considering launching a regional office in Kazakhstan. Altogether, there are a total of 30 representation offices. I believe Kazakhstan stands all chances to be home to one', he said."

Reported on Wikimeta: "On June 16, 2011 in Almaty, Kazakhstan chapter creation initiative group organized the first WP events. It had been press-conference and presentation of the web-page with kazakh video & PDF tutorials and start of Wiki-campaign dedicated to 20th independence anniversary. Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the WMF Mr.Ting Chen, Head of Kazakh Encyclopedia Mr. B.Zhakyp, Parliament deputy Mr. M.Abenov (internet advocate), co-founder of Wikibilim Foundation Mr.Rauan Kenzhekhanuly, deputy chair of JS "KazKontent" (state agency responsible for development of Kazakh internet) had participated in the event. Also Mr.Ting Chen held a seminar on Wikipedia and WMF development. [13]

• Ting Chen wing.philopp at gmx.de Fri Jun 17 20:32:55 UTC 2011 I was mostly on travel last week, and had visited Almaty, Kazakhstan. Something really remarkable is happenning there. Our volunteers there had started to organize a nationwide movement and had found support in the politics, companies and media. The Kazakh Encyclopedia had decided to put its up-to-date 16-band encyclopedia under a free licence. There are initiatives in the parliament to make the copyright law more clear and supportive in respect of free-licenses, and the biggest national welfare fund "Samruk-Kazyna" had decided to fund activities to build up the Kazakh Wikipedia. Our volunteers there are going to start ambassador programs in the universities in Almaty and had set the very ambitious goal to expand the Kazakh Wikipedia into 200k articles until December 16th, the 20th independance [sic] day of the Republic Kazakhstan, not by using bots, but by writing and translating qualified articles. That would mean about ten fold of the article amount than at the moment. It was on my way from airport back how when I got the first congratulations, before I got know the result.
• June 20, 2011 - The Wikimedia Foundation holds a board meeting via IRC. Ting Chen and Jimmy were both in attendance.

Other possible actions

I will leave it up to the community to make their suggestions, but other actions could include:

• Put a banner on the Kazakh Wikipedia, visible on every content page, pointing out to readers, in Kazakh and English, that significant parts of the Kazakh Wikipedia's content are non-free and/or reflect the Kazakh government's view only, and advising them that they should consult other Wikipedias to get a more rounded view of certain topics. The WMF and the community should collaborate to work out an appropriate wording for this on Meta. Peter Damian (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, all of it is "free" in the sense of the license. As has happened in other countries, the copyright was donated. In terms of pointing out the bias, it strikes me as overkill to place it on every single page. Would it not be better to work with the community there to be sure that NPOV notices are placed liberally whenever they are needed? And to be prepared to deadmin and make new admins if it turns out the existing admins are not acting in accordance with our principles? Obviously, all of this sort of thing should follow not precede a thorough study of the situation there. Trusting a bunch of people who don't read Kazakh and who have a long history of trying to discredit me with an insane view that I'm a supporter of the regime in Kazakhstan is hardly a proper process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support these proposals (i.e. make a thorough and independent study, then work with the community on KZWP to be sure that NPOV notices are placed liberally whenever they are needed, and be prepared to desysop or create new admins where necessary. Peter Damian (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wales: Of course my view isn't that you deliberately and actively support the Kazakh regime; you have repeatedly said you oppose it. But where "discrediting" you is concerned, your own actions make a pretty good job of that: allowing your WMF servers to serve the agenda of despots like Nazarbayev and his cronies is hardly an act of opposition. By the way: you and whatever "bunch of people" you trust all read Kazakh? Writegeist (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted post

I copy below, and take responsibility for, a post by user:Writegeist which has repeatedly deleted from your page, with comments like ‘Writegeist not welcome here’. The points he make seem reasonable, and in good faith. I do not know if he is welcome or not. If not, please (addressing Jimmy here) feel free to delete. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comments again. Writegeist is not welcomed on this page and I will continue to remove all his comments put on this page. He has been trolling here, and if anybody takes responsibility for putting his comments back on the page, they are trolling also and will not be welcomed here. Jimmy can let me know if he thinks this is not a good way to moderate this page, but until he does, that is the way that I will moderate the page.

Let's be clear, Jimmy has a right to moderate his talk page and to let others do it in his place. It is his stated practice that others (specifically including myself) should do the moderating for him. This has been upheld twice at arbcom. If you disagree, you can ask Jimmy, or ask arbcom to reconsider. Until I hear otherwise, Writegeist is off this page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In any case, I'll add my voice to be keen to hear why. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dear Jimbo, that is really fine to blame James for your own actions. --.js (((☎))) 11:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

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

Hmm. I dunno. Maybe we'll find out when the statement is released. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+1. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I meant mandate in the strict sense of election victory, nothing more.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"shortcomings in character" ← is this kind of PA sanctionable? It probably should be. Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+1 very good point! --.js (((☎))) 07:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

we need to know what happened--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have said inflammatory things. Please don't twist my words. --.js (((☎))) 10:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The trouble is, the hinting is more damaging than anything [15]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"There has been no "official" announcement" Well, [16] was posted, with the subject "Announcement about changes to the Board", to the "Wikimedia Announcements" mailing list (and to the "Wikimedia-l" list, as [17]) 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another reminder: the best elected among "the 3 from the community" was elected 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, 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

..........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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

"Failure to meet expectations?" The board has failed to meet my expectations in this fiasco. Edison (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's an interesting discussion on BLPN (link) where some editors are saying that a rape victim (viz Jameis Winston) should not be referred to as a "victim" but instead as an "accuser". The reason for insisting on this change, apparently, is that we should retain doubts about whether she was telling the truth -- which I think amounts to saying that we should retain doubts about women's reports of rape as a general rule. This might be a discussion of wide interest to editors here. I naturally think the topic is connected to what some people perceive as Wikipedia's gender problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomoskedasticity, I think the correct legal term in this case is "complainant", which doesn't isn't supposed to imply either way. I understand your concern. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think it might easily be read to imply that she was (merely) complaining... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity I understand, but that's the legal term that would be used. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can always wikilink the term (which redirects to Plaintiff) to forestall improper implications. -- Avi (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one approach, but it seems that if we use a word and have to wikilink it because we know it may be misinterpreted, we should usually try to look for a better word that says what we mean in a more direct way. In this case, "accuser" is the plain English word that I think we're looking for. And given the overall facts of this particular case, at least as currently presented in the article, there seems no way for Wikipedia to say anything stronger than that.

I hasten to add that this in no way amounts to saying that "we should retain doubts about women's reports of rape as a general rule". Indeed, it strikes me that if we adopted the stance that we must in every case use the word 'victim' upon a report of rape we would be adopting a rule to "assume the truth of all rape allegations as a general rule". Neither is suitable for Wikipedia, which should always take a pretty cautious approach in terms of reporting what is known and confirmed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Accuser" seems right to me as well. I don't know how it works if all the RSs ae using a different term though, are we obliged to parrot the RSs term? I do not know and would appreciate an answer on that aspect. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME plays a major part. Since rape is a serious criminal offence, saying "victim" implies guilt regardless of whether a court has decided this or not. This leads to NPOV issues and also potential libel. Although many rape cases never come to court, there is also a need not to allow guilt by accusation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, a person who has been raped only becomes a complainant upon filing charges, and cannot become a complainant at all if, for some reason, charges are not or cannot be brought. The victim's inability or unwillingness to file charges, or the court’s failure to accept them, does not mean the rape did not occur. What if the courts are not functioning because there’s a war? What if the victim is a slave, or otherwise lacks legal standing? It is very well to say that Wikipedia "should always take a pretty cautious approach in terms of reporting what is known and confirmed," but in the absence of a definitive judicial determination, how is Wikipedia to know or confirm? That could lead us into the unsavory old custom of assuming that a person who says they have been raped should be treated as a liar unless they can prove otherwise. The specter of libel raised by ianmacm appears to be illusory, since the underlying libel -- having been published by the victim and reported by reliable sources, could not be laid at Wikipedia’s door.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, fewer than 10% of rapes reported to the police result in a conviction. By the logic favoured by most editors posting on this topic, what we then get is that more than 90% of women who report rapes to the police are not "victims". Have some fun with that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a gap in your reasoning here. It isn't that anyone here is arguing that they are not victims, it is that we cannot assert positively that they are. This is not the same thing.

Note as well the deeper problem with your reasoning from the general to the specific. The principle is that it is invalid to argue from a statistical likelihood for a category to a conclusion in a particular case. In "he said, she said" situations there are generally two main possibilities: he's lying, or she's lying. That leaves 3 possibilities for Wikipedia: say (or imply) that he's lying, say (or imply) that she's lying, or adopt neutral language that doesn't answer the question either way. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that we believe based on broader evidence that in 90% of the cases, he's the one lying. That still doesn't justify moving from the neutral language position to a conclusive position, absent clear guidance from an external source.

Going back to this particular case, we have a state Supreme Court Justice saying "I do not find the credibility of one story substantially stronger than that of the other". That's a pretty strong positive reason for us to stick with neutral language. That is, it isn't just that we don't have strong evidence (such as a conviction) to move us at this time into a conclusive statement in either direction, we have positive evidence that neutral language is the best solution.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is emphatically not the case. The term "alleged victim" is commonly used in newspapers here in the US and by police and court officials in the absence of a conviction against a named defendant, as is the case in the BLP article we are talking about. Please don't imply that most of the editors working toward an NPOV resolution here are rape denialists. That is unacceptable. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that most rapes reported to the police do not result in a conviction. However, rape is such a serious criminal offence that guilt by accusation is unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I understand it, a person who has been raped only becomes a complainant upon filing charges, and cannot become a complainant at all if, for some reason, charges are not or cannot be brought. The victim's inability or unwillingness to file charges, or the court’s failure to accept them, does not mean the rape did not occur. What if the courts are not functioning because there’s a war? What if the victim is a slave, or otherwise lacks legal standing? It is very well to say that Wikipedia "should always take a pretty cautious approach in terms of reporting what is known and confirmed," but in the absence of a definitive judicial determination, how is Wikipedia to know or confirm? That could lead us into the unsavory old custom of assuming that a person who says they have been raped should be treated as a liar unless they can prove otherwise. The specter of libel raised by ianmacm appears to be illusory, since the underlying libel -- having been published by the victim and reported by reliable sources, could not be laid at Wikipedia’s door.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the term accuser: an accuser is someone who accuses a specific person. Some rape victims cannot accuse anyone, because they are unable to identify the perpetrator. In other cases, rape victims may be prevented from identifying the perpetrator by extortionate demands, fear of reprisal, incapacity, or other considerations. A crime may be reported by its victim, but that victim may in some cases be neither an accuser nor a plaintiff nor a complainant. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case at hand, the reliable sources use the term "accuser" - thus we should not use a stronger term than the sources use. And the (unusual) argument that by using "accuser" we are saying rapes do not occur or that we imply that "accusers" are liars is simply Python-esque. Collect (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I agree that such cases exist and that in those cases the term "accuser" isn't the right one. But that is not the case we have been discussing, where quiet clearly she did accuse a specific person. In such cases, the word "victim" is less problematic to some extent because it doesn't implicitly conclude that the person (BLP) being accused is guilty. But let's go further, there are cases where everyone would agree that the victim really is a victim, even the accused, but the accused may be arguing (perhaps persuasively) that there's a case of mistaken identity. (Nicole Simpson - no one argued that she wasn't a victim. OJ argued that he didn't do it.)

My overall point is that no simple formula will do. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of possible scenarios in which we would take a different approach. We can't have a general policy of never referring to people as "victims" nor of always referring to some category of complainants/accusers as "victims". Editorial judgment will always matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is being bandied about here as well in order to please the drama gods, people would like to slippery slope their 'general rule' when in this specific case a rape was investigated by the police and determined given the evidence available no real chance of conviction. It was also investigated by the FSU before an ex-Judge who determined there was a lack of evidence of a crime. What is really depressing about the whole thing is that someone who has a biography on wikipedia has to have a section in it about rape allegations where not only is there unlikely to ever be a conviction, but is probably going to tar him for the indefinate future. Or as long as people can edit wikipedia anonymously in order to smear others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's comments above aptly summarize my position on the issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a general rule, persons that make complaints of rape don't "bring charges" regardless of TV. The state brings charges. A "victim" is generally required to bring charges (i.e. Nicole Simpson was a victim when a crime was alleged by the state, she needed to neither be alive, be a witness or consent to prosecution). An example of how the press acts is seen in a lot of self-defense shootings. Initial copy might call the person with the gunshot a "victim" but that will change as the story develops and the shooter becomes the "victim" and the wounded person is the perpetrator. In the case of Cosby, for example, his recent charging document will identify a victim. Victim's Rights bills have given some say to victims regarding charging but it's ultimately the State that says "crime" and "victim" and "alleged perpetrator." When no one is named, use of "victim" should defer to the person that felt victimized. When there is an accusation against a specific individual, the sources and, particularly, the State are naming victims of a crime - as well as deciding if there is probable cause to believe a crime occurred. No one disputes the claim that Nicole Simpson was a victim of murder largely because the prosecutor and coroner and police said she was a victim and it is reported in RS. In a strict definition, a "victim" is the person named in a chargeing statement that they are a victim of a crime. The case against Cosby will be "Pennsylvania vs. Bill Cosby", not "Jane Doe vs. Bill Cosby." --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We called it "Visual editor" back then. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.

Bill Cosby total size 86K

Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations 182K. Includes vast amounts of claims and allegations.

This is how some Wikipedia editors appear to weigh biographies. Collect (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That’s quite an article. There is even an enormous list of degrees rescinded. On the other hand, all the statements are sourced, and it’s difficult to put a finger on exactly what is wrong here – even though I agree something clearly is wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Collect, and everyone is invited to improve them. Your belief that Mr. Cosby's mugshot is of "nil value" to this encyclopedia, following his arraignment on Class I felony aggravated indecent assault charges, speaks for itself. Personally, this is not how I would suggest trimming the article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I would point out that claiming that class 2 felony charges are "Class 1" is a teensy bit errant. Too many folks appear to think if 10,000 words do not convince anyone that a person is a figurative Satan, that 20,000 words will be better <g>. And again - allegations make for really bad biographies. A photo of a nearly-blind old guy up for class 2 felonies does not meet my idea of "encyclopedic value", alas. Collect (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa!! As Mashable reports, "The Montgomery County District Attorney's office has said that the charge against Cosby is a second-degree felony. It previously called it a first-degree felony. That means the maximum prison sentence is 10 years, not 20." So if he can only go to prison for 10 years for felony aggravated assault, does that make his mugshot less EV? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And did you read what the minimum sentence is for such a crime? And the maximum fine for such a crime? Class 2 felonies are then often plea-bargained down to misdemeanors, as a simple matter of fact, especially where there is a significant "he said/ she said" factor about the specific case at hand. Cheers - he is not yet alleged to have committed first-degree murder, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind the Dear Leader’s immortal words (“What actions are you recommending at this time?”), the list in Peter’s link could be heavily cut for a start. All it needs is the name of each university, the date the degree was awarded, the date it was rescinded, and cites, without all the rest of the twaddle. But of course an officer of the Obsessive Detail Protection Force would probably add it all back again. Writegeist (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have already suggested as much on the article's Talk page. Again, anyone can help, it's not rocket science. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, involving dozens of people, is much more important and deserves much more content. Remember, there is a trial scheduled as well which is likely to generate even more material. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance: Nuremberg trials - 96K. Cosby is clearly at least twice as important to an encyclopedia as the most significant war crimes trial in history (which concerned many millions of people). Collect (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not shown by word count or file size. Recent history will almost always be larger because we have so much more information about it: we can quite easily get four citations per sentence, and those citations will include more detail than bibliographical citations at the Nuremberg trials. In the future the article will likely be trimmed, but for now stuff like this and our BLP policies mean we need to ensure every single statement is cited to the nines. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great point I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect. The Nuremberg article needs to be expanded to include much fuller coverage. I can point him to some excellent references for this. Best regards, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The stated goal is to write an encyclopedia - not to convey every factoid, allegation and rumour about a scandal remotely supportable in a "reliable source." If the article is not worth a 200K size today, it will not be worth that space in 50 years. And WP:BLP does not say "cover every factoid and allegation about a living person in detail with as much verbiage as possible" - it says we must write biographies conservatively in the first place. Sorry -- this idea of "make scandals and allegations about living persons the dominant feature of Wikipedia" is the sign of the end of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and marks a deliberate transition to Rumourandallegationopedia. (word counts: Nuremberg trials about 6300 words, Cosby allegations over 14,000 words or significantly more than double) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I took a very bloated article on Joseph Widney, reduced its size by 3/4 - and made a "good article" out of it. One would be very hard pressed indeed to make any claim that I seek to "bloat" any article on Wikipedia whatsoever. There are no valid reasons for any article to become bloated at all. Collect (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Go do it to other articles then! -mattbuck (Talk) 16:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the size of one article because it is "less important" than another is ridiculous. There can scarcely be a more vulgar error. Why do we have FIVE WORDS about the wrestling leagues, when you can scroll to the end of our article about the Sun? Because people, God help them, put in the effort. If someone doesn't want 182K of allegations about them in Wikipedia, I suggest they not leave themselves open to accusations by that many women, or do a better job providing refutations for us to summarize. Once it goes in the literature, it is an encyclopedia's job to review it. Wnt (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Jimbo Wales: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. North America1000 21:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

By the way, did you know that this edit was the last edit made in 2015, and this is the first edit of 2016? (Times in UTC, of course). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.