Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Petition to Jimbo

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. vvvt 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. vvvt 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 behavior[reply]
  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 course[reply]
  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 ○ 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]
    -- 84.174.60.27 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 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 HIf 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 anything[reply]
  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. --germanTaxman 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 knowlege[reply]
  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. rodrigotalk 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 sexy 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, Jimbo[reply]
  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]
    Sometimes you have to do things that aren't allowed, if it's necessary. Katharina die Große 14:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 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.

May 12, 2010 edit

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

See also edit

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petition_to_Jimbo&oldid=16363518"