Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Petition to Jimbo

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum.
Author's note: Jimbo has apologized and promised to avoid such incidents. This reply fulfills the goal of the petition (though you still can put your signature if you support it). Anyone interested in the actual sexual content policy may follow Jimmy's advice and join the discussion at Commons. vvv t 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Petition to Jimbo Wales:

We have recently observed two controversies related to your actions. Both of them were caused by the fact that you did not follow the community-established procedures and policies. Both of them were not properly discussed within the community before they were carried out.

While many of us trust your judgement on such matters, we remind you that volunteers are people who donate their time and skills to Wikimedia projects and should be treated respectfully. Several volunteers left after your actions, and this clearly indicates that there is a problem in communication between you and the community.

We therefore ask you to respect the processes and policies established by our community. All major actions should be discussed before they are carried out, especially those related to blocks and content deletion. We understand that sometimes your intervention is required to protect the Foundation or its users; in such cases, they should be clearly indicated as such and it should be clearly explained why it is an emergency. When the matter is not urgent anymore, the community should be allowed to review these actions.

Signatories

[edit ]
  1. vvv t 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  2. --Darwinius 21:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Agreed.reply
  3. Fully agreed. 555 21:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  4. Agreed. Support Drini's statement, too. --Millosh 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  5. Agreed TheDJ 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  6. Agreed. Also, Remove Jimbo's Founder Flag so this doesn't happen again. Alecmconroy 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  7. Agreed W00pzor 22:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  8. Agreed. Trycatch 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  9. Olaf 22:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  10. Fully agree Niels 23:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  11. Diupwijk 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  12. Kyro 23:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  13. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  14. Blurpeace 00:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  15. Tukka 00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  16. Jopparn 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  17. Entheta 00:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I agree except I don't trust his judgment and I think there's more to the problem than this.reply
  18. Dnm 01:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I think his actions are unacceptable, undemocratic and a threat to the freedom of expression within the statutory limits. What a shame ...
  19. ZooFari 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  20. --by Màñü飆15 talk 02:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  21. Guido den Broeder 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  22. -Atmoz 02:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  23. Saloca 04:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I'm proud to be part of the Wikipedia editors (and the other projects) and as was mentioned by other, policies should emerge from consensus among the community, not a mere opposition to a controversial subject.reply
  24. I think the days of godkings are way past. We're not on 2002. We have a board, staff, Foundation that have global authority. I think most projects have long grown and matured as to take decisions by themselves in the spirit of a true community, and Jimbo having the power to overrule them goes against this philosophy. Yes Jimbo is a member of the board, but he's not the board and he didn't speak for the board. Should things come down from the top (board/staff) it should be crystal clear and not as a personal message followed by "if you disagree with me, then I'll get the board to back me up". This is also not a comment or view on the commons specific issue. It's about the general principle underlying the whole figure. es: Drini 05:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  25. I support this petition and Drini's statement. --Gmaxwell 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  26. I support this petition and in particular Drini's statement. Snowolf How can I help? 05:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  27. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  28. --Duplode 05:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  29. Briefly returning from retirement to tell you that you should give up all your supercop privileges. You've already did some harm on enwiki and consequentally had to promise to refrain from blocking anyone, while your arbitration was underway. I'm afraid you messed things up again. Stop it, immediately. Absolutist monarchy has no chances here. MaxSem (Han shot first!) 05:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  30. Agreed, though like others, I most certainly do not trust Jimbo's judgment. Resolute 06:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  31. Kusma 06:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  32. --S [1] 06:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  33. I agree with Drini's statement. --dapete 07:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  34. Ternarius 07:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Fully agree. This is a real threat to Wikipedia's freedom.reply
  35. --Ankara 07:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  36. --KTo288 08:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  37. Frankly, I think we're better off voting on the poll to remove his founder flag. He has a long history of going off half-cocked, causing major problems and disruption, and, in this case, it turned out after he did it that he was doing it all for secret ulterior motives involving FoxNews trying to manufacture a scandal about Wikipedia, which he decided to support, by acting as if it was valid - and didn't bother to tell any of the contributors the real reason he was doing it. It was only discovered a day later, after he had claimed he was acting solely for legal reasons, then started attacking legally-protected artworks from the 19th century. I've lost all respect for him. Adam Cuerden 08:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  38. FredrikT 08:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  39. Anyone who considers a good way to "fix" a problem is by coming in heavy footed and ignoring the community does not have the management or leadership qualities required for me I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 08:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  40. In the light of Jimbo's recent actions on Commons, I have also voted for the removal of his flag (without much hope). --Eusebius 08:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  41. All that speedy deletions were a rash resolve.--Abiyoyo 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  42. Nemo 09:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  43. --Bruno Rosta 09:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  44. As Herby. Jimbo's abuse of power is blatant, flagrant, and ridiculous. Well past his time to go. And as Adam, let's link to this again, for good measure: Remove Jimbo's founder flag Maedin\talk 09:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  45. --voyager 10:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  46. --DS-fax 10:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  47. Agree and support. --Myrabella 11:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  48. --Leyo 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC) deletion warring ([1], [2]) is an unacceptable behaviorreply
  49. --Paramecium 11:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  50. --Matthiasb 11:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  51. -- Achim Raschka 11:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  52. -- aleichem 11:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  53. I believe that there are such situations where cross-wiki intervention is needed. The situation on Wikiversity was rather controversial, but OK, I find Jimbo's desicion reasonable, the page he deleted had little or no educational value. But the situation on Commons is a serious problem. At the moment Commons doesn't have any rules forbiding such content. Many of the images had encyclopaedic value, deletion of paintings by notable artists is especially strange. I think that such attempts of censorship should not take place on any WMF project, unless there is a clear board desicion — NickK 11:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  54. -- Cymothoa exigua 11:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  55. --08-15 11:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  56. --Olaf2 12:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  57. --Revolus Echo der Stille 12:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  58. --Dundak 12:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  59. --Micha 12:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC) of coursereply
  60. - Mobius Clock 12:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  61. --Gestumblindi 12:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  62. --Saibo (Δ) 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  63. Agree. Commons did need cleaning up, but delete-everything-and-rebuild-from-scratch isn't the way to go. If anyone other than Jimmy Wales had done this, they'd undoubtedly have been banned from the project altogether; while Jimbo is an important figure in the history of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, the sites are not his personal sandboxes, and his "kill them all and let God sort them out" spree is well over the line into vandalism. ("Home made porn"?). Iridescent 12:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  64. Support wholeheartedly - Some of JW's actions have now crossed the line in respect of what he should do and when. Bilateral consensus is needed for stuff like this. BarkingFish 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  65. --Ragimiri 12:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  66. Supported. --Rosenzweig 12:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  67. Yellowcard 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  68. Palu 13:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  69. --Tomas e
  70. --Asthma 13:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  71. Agreed. Support Drini's statement, too. --Dodo 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  72. --Draffix 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  73. I expect public apology from Mr. Jimmy, wikimedia projects are not his own private property, and we are not his own private slaves! --Phyrexian 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  74. --Kacir 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  75. --Sonty 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC) - This man needs to be protected from being Wikipedia nr.1 so the community and rules can take better care of controversial issues.reply
  76. In the future, if action like this needs to be taken, it should be done by the board, after they have time to discuss it, not rushed, unilateral action like this. Unless there's something that the foundation isn't telling us, there was absolutely no reason to rush here. Mr.Z-man 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  77. --Slfi 13:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  78. --Rainer Zenz 13:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  79. Prolog 13:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  80. --Алый Король 13:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  81. --Histo 13:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  82. Agreed. Please understand, that Wikipedia is an international, not an US-project. ----Nemissimo 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  83. Chaddy 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  84. --ST ○しろまる 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  85. Bernhard Wallisch 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  86. Per Drini's statement. Dodoïste 14:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  87. --Vituzzu 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  88. Joshua06 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  89. --AndreasPraefcke 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  90. Turb 14:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  91. --diba 14:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  92. --Tilla 14:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  93. --TheK 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Please understand, that Wikipedia is an international, not an US-project.reply
  94. Obelix 14:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not against that the Wikimedia Foundations committee acts without discussing the issue. They own the projects and should have the utmost power to act, but Jimbo Wales or someone else should not act alone. They should have taken it up with the Wikimedia committee first and made a decision there.reply
  95. --Howwi 15:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  96. Quoting every single letter and punctuation sign. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  97. --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 15:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  98. --Kulac 15:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  99. While I can see some merit to the concerns about sexual content on Wikipedia, I am concerned about the way this mass unilateral deletion of images has occurred, and the potential consequences to the Wikipedia and Commons communities. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  100. Onix GCI 15:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  101. Rami R 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  102. I support this petition and fully agree with Drini's statement. Croquant 15:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  103. --Julez A. 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  104. Agreed, especially with Drini's statement. I don't neccesarily oppose him exerting his authority like this on Wikipedia, but I feel he is severely over-extending his authority on the sister projects. Bawolff 16:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  105. --Peter Putzer 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  106. aleksandrit 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    (削除) -- 84.174.60.27 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (削除ここまで) unknown Patrol110 12:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  107. Imo, cleanup on Commons will only be done when Jimbo will lose his founder flag. Supporting this petition due to the abuse of power shown... esby 16:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  108. Fully agreed. Fluidfire SAY HI f 11:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  109. --Александр Мотин 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  110. --Martin Bahmann 17:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  111. --Thi 17:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  112. G0rn 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  113. Escarlati 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  114. --Andim 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  115. --Mabschaaf 17:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  116. Diliff 18:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  117. --Knopfkind 18:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  118. --Karsten11 18:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  119. — Ace^eVg 18:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  120. Kalan ? 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  121. --Septembermorgen 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  122. --Niabot 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  123. --Steef 389 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  124. -- Mistery Spectre 19:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  125. --Berntie 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC), totally agree, but I don't expect this petition will change anythingreply
  126. -- The Wordsmith 19:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  127. --TwoWings 19:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  128. ChristianH 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  129. --Tedmek 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  130. Obviously agree. --Cyclopia 20:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  131. the wub "?!" 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  132. Ukko 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  133. Mstislavl 21:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  134. Аурелиано Буэндиа 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  135. -- sigbert 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  136. --Ecelan 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  137. --Robot Monk 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  138. I think Jimbo should continue to provide guidance, direction, and even general instructions to WMF communities, but details of implementation should be left to the community. In other words, tell us what needs to be done in general, but not how to handle individual files, articles, or users. Black Falcon (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  139. --Ensada 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  140. --WizardOfOz talk 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  141. → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  142. Absolutely. Tim Song 22:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  143. --Jahobr 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  144. VIGNERON * discut. 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  145. --Factumquintus 23:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  146. --Leithian 00:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  147. -- KovacsUr 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  148. Boréal 01:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  149. I have to agree with the people above. Diego Grez return fire 03:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  150. Adrignola 04:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  151. --Mr. Wales please consider reading these few pages Community Consensus, Authoritarianism and Global sysops open for recall. Thank you Mlpearc 06:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  152. --german Taxman 06:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  153. —DerHexer (Talk) 07:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  154. --Signed Joyborg- "...in such cases, they should be clearly indicated as such and it should be clearly explained why it is an emergency." 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  155. „shoot first, ask later"-actions mainly kill trust. maybe it's a cultural thing... Blunt. 07:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  156. Agreed. There is something wrong on Commons, but that doesn't make Jimbos actions right. --Jailbird 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  157. Matty the Damned 08:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  158. --Exorcist Z 08:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  159. Some people have much more power than another, but nobody may break the rules, otherwise there were no rules and no law. The problem should be discussed in a serious way, not by flame and wheel warring. Incnis Mrsi 09:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  160. --NSX-Racer 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  161. Kaj 09:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  162. Signed. Fluff 09:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  163. Jimbo has created a monster but he now needs to let it live. Sam Hocevar 09:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  164. Sjö 10:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  165. --Bucephala 11:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  166. --Zaijaj 11:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  167. --Ca$e 11:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  168. --romanm (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  169. --Reinhard Kraasch 13:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  170. --Don-kun 14:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  171. --Loshmi 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  172. Sex is natural, sex is good. Censorship is not. Wikisilki 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  173. Hey Jimbo, come "Back on the Right Track" --WikiKiwi 15:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  174. This is about empowering the community, not directed against you, Mr. Wales Pronoein 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  175. --h-stt !? 15:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  176. --Bunnyfrosch 15:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC) there is a antagonism between censorship and free knowlegereply
  177. Your recent unlateral deletions on Commons have shown your contempt for the community process. Emergency is not an excuse, it only proves your inability to take care of problems in due time (most of those deleted images have been there for months, if not years). Please make the respect of the community your top priority. Xhienne 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  178. --Geekux 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  179. Naturally. Stifle 16:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    --Anguish 19:00, 9 May 2010 (CEST) - edit by IP
  180. Agreed! --Twardon 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  181. Strongly agree with Drini's statement. Montgomery 17:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  182. Agreed! -- Krakatit 17:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  183. --habakuk 17:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  184. rodrigo talk 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  185. --Poco a poco 17:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  186. --Momotaro 17:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  187. --Mik.c.OS 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  188. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) - We're a community and Jimbo is part of it. We should all act as one.reply
  189. -- Marcus Cyron 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  190. --WiseWoman 18:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Jimmy, I know you think that you are more equal than others, but you are wrong, twice. We have a community and a process for reaching a decision. I realize that you are probably under pressure from the USA religious right threatening to quit giving WP money. But this is censorship.reply
  191. Rastrojo (D•ES) 18:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Per my fellow partners, we shouldn't be afraid anymore about attacks because WE feel convinced of what we are doing here: building a new era in human knowledge.reply
  192. --T1gerch3n 18:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  193. Liesel 18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  194. --Nillerdk 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  195. Luis1970 19:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  196. --Lienhard Schulz 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  197. Diegusjaimes 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  198. --3coma14 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  199. --El Grafo 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  200. Well said. I'm sure Jimbo's only got the best intentions, but this just isn't the way to do things anymore. -- Schnee 20:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  201. --Capaci34 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  202. --Highfields 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  203. --Jens Lallensack 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  204. --Wmeinhart 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  205. agreed Wikipedia has an educational responsibility. This includes also the human body and art about sexuality. Its not reasonable in a neutral view to cencore legal material based on a american-conservative prude worldview like Fox has. A discussion is therefore strongly needed to get the different worldviews of the community into account. —MovGP0 20:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  206. Per Drini. --Ecemaml 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  207. Aleposta 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  208. --Wolfgang H. 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  209. --alexscho 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  210. --Ireas 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  211. --Hozro 21:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  212. --DieBuche 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  213. en:Chilling effect (term) on top of what everyone else said. -- RichiH 22:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  214. --Anghy 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  215. --Denis Barthel 22:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  216. --C.lingg 22:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  217. -- I totally agree with Drini's statement Marjorie Apel 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  218. --Kyselak 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  219. --Hannes Röst 22:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I believe that Jimbo can have a very positive role but rather by bringing topics up that need discussion and steer strategic discussions and not by ad hoc exercises like this one. I might even agree with what was done but not HOW it was done.reply
  220. --0g1o2i3k4e5n6 23:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  221. --Nicor 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  222. --Hprmedina 23:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  223. Altes 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  224. Noodle snacks 03:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  225. -- agree for two reasones, 1. now one should be able to delete content without discussion, this is totalitarianism, 2. pictures of naked bodies is not porno. It seems this way in the US, but not everywhre. Please don't promote a US-centerd view of the world in wikimedia. Henristosch 05:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  226. KveD (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC) agree with drini's statement.reply
  227. --He3nry 05:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  228. --Kuebi 05:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  229. --Eresthor 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  230. --Daniel 1992 07:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  231. --Jón 08:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  232. --Elop 08:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  233. --SchalkimNacken 09:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  234. --Björn Bornhöft 09:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  235. --Itsnotuitsme 10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  236. Plrk 10:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  237. Litlok 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  238. Lukas9950 11:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  239. Philistion 11:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC) It is very inexpedient to perform top-down-decisions by one person, the community is also able to act very quickly in such cases (if necessary)reply
  240. Bijick 12:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  241. --W.girmes 12:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 12:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Jimbo, trust us.reply
  242. Your child ist grown up now. No more need to be a helicopter mom. Weissbier 12:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  243. Knee jerk reactions are never appropriate. Headbomb 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  244. --Conti 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  245. --Benzen 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  246. Jarke 14:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  247. Smuliman 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  248. Amerique 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  249. --Proofreader 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Didn't you create Wikipedia because you believe in collective intelligence? Well, the collective obviously thinks that you are wrong in this particular issue. Face it, be wise and let your kid have it's way. Sometimes even the most well-intentioned parents actually ARE wrong.reply
  250. Prosfilaes 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Taking a stand on an issue that Commons had been working with would have been one thing, but massively implementing it without discussion is quite another.reply
  251. every admin should be elected--Cartinal 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  252. -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  253. --Cvf-ps 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  254. --Jivee Blau 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  255. --Schlurcher 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  256. --Alofok 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  257. --WolfgangRieger 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) In the light of the recent actions a definitely support this. Especially on commons one should be extra careful.reply
  258. Gdarin | talk 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  259. --Revvar 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  260. --Schlesinger 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  261. Awersowy 20:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  262. --Tobias1983 20:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  263. Hofres 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  264. --Tnnn 21:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  265. I am also in full agreement with Drini's statement. Tirithel 23:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  266. Kordas (sínome! ) 23:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  267. --SDI2 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  268. --Taichi - (あ!) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  269. --DieAlraune 05:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  270. --Sigwald 06:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  271. --Funkruf 07:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  272. -- Sozi 07:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  273. --Goodgirl 08:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  274. --Kpisimon 09:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  275. --Jsjsjs1111 09:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  276. —Tasnu Arakun 09:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  277. --Cactus26 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  278. Pnd also see my proposal for democratic reform
  279. --Krd 10:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  280. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  281. --MittlererWeg 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  282. --Dispe 13:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  283. --Kmhkmh 13:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  284. --Siva1979 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC) The human body and the practice of sexual acts is not to be shamed as pornography. It should not be censured.reply
  285. --Raboe001 14:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Auch wenn ich über die Löschung einige Bilder nicht traurig bin, ACHTUNG: Dein Wille ist unser Befehl, sicher nicht, das hatten wir schon.reply
  286. -- Freedom Wizard 16:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  287. agreed --Geos 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  288. --Verum 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  289. -- Bearian 20:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  290. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 20:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  291. --Kanzlei Franz Kafka 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC) for my main account Sonnenblumen (de-WP)reply
  292. --valepert 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  293. -- Fransvannes 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  294. --Limonadis 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  295. --Mbdortmund 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  296. --Taxiarchos228 08:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  297. --Jocian 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  298. Fale 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  299. --Patroller 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  300. --GRuban 15:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  301. Redlinux 18:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  302. --Novil Ariandis 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  303. --Helios 10:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  304. --Biasco 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  305. No trust at all in Mr. Wales. The Essjay affair is not forgotten. --Insert coins 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  306. --Schnatzel 18:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  307. -- Sex Sells. It increases Wikipedia's bandwidth, drawing more funds. Remember, sex SELLS! Fail 01:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)--reply
  308. --Xaura 11:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  309. --DracoRoboter 14:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC) (Jimbo, wikipedia is not mandatory. Get a life out of here, please.)reply
  310. Mr. Wales, either you maintain consensus or get yourself out of here. Tanvir 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  311. Wikipedia is no place for dictators or "enlightened monarchs". Giving up your special powers while keeping the option to reach out for them whenever it suits you is plain cowardice.--Camr 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  312. I don't know why it's so difficult for some administrators to absorb the fact that non-administrators can't see deleted stuff. Deleting things before discussion effectively excludes most of the community from the discussion. Clayoquot 02:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  313. --Apoc2400 05:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  314. --Darkking3 10:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  315. --WIKImaniac 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  316. --MSGrabia 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) (from de.wiki). Your aim surely shouldn't be to please FOX while harming Wikipedia's established structures. As you should've known better beforehand, personally I don't accept your apology to the community.reply
  317. --HombreDHojalata 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  318. -=BigSus=- 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  319. --Zietz 08:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (User-Account in der the German Wikipedia)reply
  320. -- User:SummerWithMorons 15:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Unsophisticated people like Jimbo "benevolent dictator" Wales should learn from Paul Krassner: "appealing to the prurient interest IS a socially redeeming value."reply
  321. Wilfredor 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  322. Fight da power! Johnanth 12:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  323. AerobicFox 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Counter-signatories

[edit ]

Those who disagree with this petition.

  1. This section was removed earlier by those above wishing to stifle support for Jimbo, and this has been part of a long amount of abuse of ops, edit warring, and flat out bullying by those who disagree with Jimbo (see the vandalism to the main page, to his policy page, protection of said policy page with vandalism, wheel warring, and blocking of those who point out inappropriate behavior). If you want to be associated with such actions that go against every one of our policies, continue to be a signer of the above. Volunteers who left did so after abusing their ops, making gratuitous personal attacks, and other matters unbecoming of trust. Their actions were inexcusable and did not resemble what is best for the WMF and its projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    1. Your comment essentially maligns anyone considering signing the petition of complaint against Wales' behaviour. That acts to chill legitimate criticism, because you wish to tar everyone with the same brush as someone who attempted to silence support. How is that appropriate? - BalthCat 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  2. Commons scope had crept beyond the project mission; NOTCENSORED was being viewed as an end in itself, which it is not. The reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation and its ability to pursue its mission were being actively damaged by the inclusion of content which was largely unused in the projects, and where used was highly questionable. Commons has become two separate projects: one for the uploading of high quality free educational content, and one for the uploading of porn. Copied form Flickr, self-made, of low quality or (very rarely) high, it was piling up and up. The same applied to Wikiversity, which was acting as a training ground for abuse of Wikimedia foundation projects. The truly staggering thing there is that the existing admins on Wikiversity did not instantly ban those who were trying to use it in that way. It should not need Jimbo to step in and remind people that we are an educational charity with social responsibilities and not an experiment in free speech, but twice in recent times Jimbo has had to do just that. Instead of demanding his head on a plate we should be examining the communities of which we are members and the processes we have there. Wikimedia projects are first, last, and everything in between, about the Foundation's mission. Anything which subverts that can be dome somewhere else, on someone else's dime, thanks all the same. JzG 18:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  3. Porno Commons is (削除) sexy (削除ここまで) repulsive! Patrol110 21:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  4. I agree with JzG 100%. Wikipedia needs to keep someone who can exercise common sense when "the mob" fails to do so. Every user right here is due to Jimbo giving it to us, and trusting our judgment....as the remaining Founder he has a responsibility to maintain ultimate oversight to keep his project true to his vision. ṬK-CP /Talk 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  5. Agree with JzG. I see no point in our having hundreds of neatly categorised BDSM pictures etc. on Commons, all available to minors, that no project links to. If we supported content rating and filtering, that would be different, and people could opt in to have access to these media, or opt out, but right now we don't have any such system. What worries me is that editors here on average seem to have a much greater interest in having and displaying porn on this project than our target groups have in finding it here. Jayen466 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  6. I do not trust Jimbo's judgment anymore and I'm convinced any further intervention by him on any sensitive issue is much more likely to harm the projects than to do good. R 00:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Then you appear to have signed the wrong section. Stifle 16:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  7. I concur with JzG. DS 00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  8. Me too concur wit JzG. Casliber 04:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  9. --Mr. Wales please consider reading these few pages Community Consensus, Authoritarianism and Global sysops open for recall. Thank you ! Mlpearc 06:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  10. I agree with JzG. That's not to say that I endorse all of Jimbo Wales's deletions - some were quite probably wrong - but such errors can be remedied through community processes. The important thing is that he took action to address a problem that, like it or not, could have serious repercussions for the Foundation and its projects. Sandstein 09:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  11. As with JzG. James F. (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  12. In agreement with JzG. 82.204.105.103 13:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  13. --Euku 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  14. Fully agree with JzG. --Flyout 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  15. as with JzG's comment related to Commons. --Túrelio 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  16. respect Jimbo! --El bes 05:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  17. --Bene16 06:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Klasse weiter so, sich nicht beirren lassen (Gefahr im Verzug, Kommandeurprinzip)! Weg mit dem Müll! Oin Scheff muas es gea, besser als eine Clique von Pseudo-Demokraten.reply
  18. I think that starter author of this petition vvv - is impersonator (common user account). Vvv - is a very young man (15 years old living in Russia, Moscow). His style of writing in Russian Wikipedia changes time to time. He can't write experienced lawyer-style petitions by his age! Sometimes vvv's style of discussions is much like User:EvgenyGenkin's style. EvgenyGenkin is living in NYC (USA) accordingly to his userpage. You may ask for comments and ask your questions (maybe in English) in the ru_wikipedia LJ-community. Jimbo Wales is founder of Wikipedia (USA also has founders and well known leaders like Washington, Lincoln etc.). Some pornography can be uploaded by same people or their impersonators who criticize him for presence or absence of this media. X-romix 07:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    I really don't see how the age of the petition writer matters. So what if he's Russian but can still write English well? You could improve yours, on the other hand... 193.109.254.20 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Why not 13 or 10-years old person makes a lawyer-style "petition" in foreign language and alien culture for him? He is really not a common user account, and I must believe to it without any checkuser's checkings? X-romix 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    UPD: One of starter edits (some minutes before renaming this petition from personal space of vvv) was made from IP 94.15.42.134, that belongs to BSkyB (British Sky Broadcasting) - firm of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is also the owner of Fox News, that criticized Wikipedia for pornography. These facts were posted by user 1plet in LJ-community ru_wikipedia (you may ask additional questions there in English). X-romix 12:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    UPD2: Vvv says that there is w:en:Sky Broadband mass internet provider in GB in WHOIS data of 94.15.42.134. X-romix 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  19. # Sensible move, Mr. Wales! Sukarnobhumibol 07:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  20. Against the petition since it's mixing two elements to reinstaure Jimbo ... Loreleil 12:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  21. At the end of the day, someone has to pay the bills to keep the lights on and the servers humming. It takes a lot more courage to take that responsibility seriously and say "No" to the sunshine civil libertarians among us than to cry "censorship" because the child fetishist must find another place to post their crap. Huzzah to Jimbo. Ronnotel 13:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  22. --Erfurter63 16:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Well done, Jimboreply
  23. --Nazareth 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) I'm proud of You, Jimbo! (like Nr. 17)reply
  24. Commons had turned into an amateur porn site, chock-full of rubbish. It had gone on long enough. I am glad Jimmy stepped in to save the day. He may have over-ruled consensus, but it was only the consensus of a mob. Perhaps when things have settled down there can be some rules and guidelines to prevent this happening again.Peter Damian 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    Old artwork isn't amateur porn; how he saved the day by creating all this chaos, I have no idea. 82.11.39.166 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  25. --Farbenpracht 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  26. I think it's still useful for an organisation like Wikimedia to have a 'god-king' - sometimes you need someone to do what no one else is willing or able to do. I have confidence in Jimbo's ability to fulfil this role. Robofish 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  27. Grzegorz Dąbrowski § 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  28. I trust him. --98.14.113.232 02:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  29. --Brainswiffer 05:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  30. --Hubertl 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Der Aufstand der Kinder gegen den Vater. Jetzt haben wir ihn endlich erwischt bei seinen autoritären Aktionen, und man kann sich mit seiner Unterschrift in der Masse verstecken. reply
  31. -- Mutter Erde 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC) As Hubertl. Zusätzlich: Jimbo sollte nicht gebeten, sondern mit altem Gemüse beworfen werden. See No.5. Answer here reply
  32. --Sooonnniii 13:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC) :-))reply
  33. --79.243.19.162 15:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Tr2002Inside the internet the mob makes the law. But it is still not rihgt. Thanks Jimbo.reply
  34. --As someone else more aptly put it: all this has been a big storm in a B-cup. (Un)fortunately most of the thousands of users can't be bother to protest (or protest the protesters), since he hardly seems to have acted out of place. Anrie 15:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  35. Keeping those images damages the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation. TomasBat 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  36. Per JzG, whom I agree with wholeheartedly. -- OlEnglish 01:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  37. -- Wikipedia is not the Catholic Church (thank God), Mr. Jimbo is not the infallible pope of the so-called community, and it is obviously a questionable approach to submit submissively what petitions ever to this mortal genius. Uka 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  38. -- Jimbo is right in getting rid of 95% of the images. If wikipedians were doing their job and preventing these blatant images in the first place, this problem would have not progressed to the point where Jimbo had to take executive action. The subject picture should mostly be replaced with the shortest and driest text description possible.4.227.252.144 04:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  39. -- Widescreen ® Who is the owner of Wikipedia the free Enzyklopedia? While I read this Petition, I'm sure its Jimbo. The idea to open an free Enzyklopedia was an respectable improvement. But now it's time to set the project free. Siehe auch Hubertl und Mutter Erde. 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    (削除) Sometimes you have to do things that aren't allowed, if it's necessary. Katharina die Große 14:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (削除ここまで) fraud: Katharina die Große = Nazareth (Nr. 23) --Dosenfutter 08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  40. If even Jimbo can't IAR in order to initiate important strategic moves, we have already become a stifling bureaucracy ruled by a clique in the name of the community. Stephen B Streater 19:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  41. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  42. Wikimedia needs less bureaucracy, not more. --Cmelbye 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  43. Ther should be no space not for pornographic illustration nor facistic (nazi-) symbols (that are forbidden by german law) and aren't of any encyclopedic value and stored there for every free usage even without the character of documentation and or necessary education. --Brummfuss 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Discussion

[edit ]

Please limit activity on this page to simple statements in support or opposition of the petition. For debate or further discussion please go to the talk page: Talk:Petition to Jimbo or start new page on meta.

Yeah. Thx!!! 90 minutes to start. Przykuta 20:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

See also

[edit ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /