On 17 March 2010 14:46, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, he doesn't get much support when he does that kind of thing on the English Wikipedia these days. He has realised that and now doesn't do them - he's even made an undertaking not to use his block button. So, if the Wikiversity community (and not just a vocal minority of it - I haven't investigated the situation, although I am aware of it due to watching Jimmy's enwiki user talk page, so I don't know which it is) wants Jimmy to stop using admin powers there, they shouldn't have any difficulty achieving that. If Jimmy wishes to discuss the matter with the WMF board he can definitely do that and, if a majority of the board agrees with him, they can take action, but Jimmy has no power to act unilaterally if a community doesn't want him to.

2010/3/18 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>: To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do: producing learning materials. Even the English Wikiversity has a set of well-developed, rich pages, e.g. Robert Elliott's filmmaking lessons: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Course:WikiU_Film_School_Course_01_-_Learnin… It's heartbreaking to see how a small project can be disrupted by a tiny number of well-known problem users, and IMO a strong argument for using more global blocking processes. Small projects often think they need to give people "fresh start" opportunities because they're otherwise not going to grow, but that's a bad bargain - introducing toxic personalities into a fledgling community is a certain way to bring about its decline. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On 18 March 2010 17:16, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well we could put in place a mechanism for creating open access journals then tell those in the open source community involved in the dwm mess to use it. Heh or start the journal of [citation needed] aka stuff wikipedians know but haven't been able to find a source for. -- geni

I think the global principle of "don't take your fight That is an old MUD principle: You're welcome, but don't think this MUD is a platform to continue a fight from another MUD. We have this on Wikinfo regularly, ChildofMidnight being the latest. http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/ChildofMidnight Fred Bauder

David and Erik, I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project does not automatically make them a troll on other projects. I oppose the creation of the breaching experiment and usage of Wikiversity as a platform to break the rules of another project but that is a matter that must be handled at the local level. I am fully confident that the community of Wikiversity will be able to effectively handle this situation on their own. It was unnecessary for Jimbo to personally intervene, rather than simply file a complaint and follow the accepted process. Just because Jimbo is the founder does not mean that he is an unquestionable authority on every single project. Geoffrey ________________________________ From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 12:44:30 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity On 19/03/2010, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Indeed. Note that the same sort of troll adoption nearly got en:wq taken out and shot last year. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

William Pietri wrote: Very true, and that's how we are trying to think about these issues generally, not just blocking. It doesn't make sense in most situations for the board or the foundation to interfere directly, nobody wants things to work that way. At the same time, a community does need to actively decide upon and maintain certain standards and not, as some people try to do, abdicate that responsibility back to the foundation. A community that fails to have standards is not really a community, nor is it worth preserving. To indicate the direction we're going, I'll give an illustration in a less contentious area. We recently had steward elections, and as in past cycles, the final candidates were appointed by the board. However, the board has decided to remove itself from the process going forward, and let the stewards manage the appointment process with the assistance of the Volunteer Coordinator if necessary. That's more consistent with the community taking jurisdiction over its own affairs, or becoming more self-governing if you will. Incidentally, that offers a reminder that we do have some existing community structure to manage global project issues, whether it's blocking or something else. While I wouldn't say that the Meta wiki is coextensive with the global community, it's one of the spaces that can be used. --Michael Snow

Hi, I have created a central page for this discussion: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Problems Viele Grüße Jan Luca Naumann Admin on de.wikiversity -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Pedro Sanchez Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. März 2010 15:46 An: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid… 23#Your_behaviour_in_Wikiversity http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics :Ethical_Breaching_Experiments#Board_discussing_closure_of_Wikiversity PM created a page explaining how to sock and sirupt. Someone deleted it. Jimmy then deleted the whole project the page it belong and blocked. Somone unblocked and reverted. jimmy fired his desysop gun, he didn't get community support, then he called board to close wikiversity as a pressure measure. quote: I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER. I think that my actions here are strongly supportive of the genuine community who want to do that, making it clear to them that they have very strong support for making it happen. Some may feel that Wikiversity should be a place for silly and juvenile experimentation. If people want to discuss such things, there is an entire Internet open to them - they should not hijack Wikiversity for these purposes.--Jimbo Wales<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>14:49;14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC) basically, jimbo is using his power muscle outside english wikipedia and he's not getting the support he usually has. Therefore, he pokes at the board. That's my personal reading _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l