Jimbo unbans Brexx unilaterally, and all hell breaks loose. Options

[Alison]

Oops! It looks like Jimmy just got a notion to unban Brexx, who's been socking for, like, years now. Every time he wades in with the sysop buttton, mayhem ensues. Whether you agree or not about "banned means banned" and the effectiveness of banning anyone in the first place, you still have to question the wisdom of this move.

So can I just go ahead and unban, say, TheKohser with a simple "Behave yourself, I'm sure many people will be watching"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Cla68]

Oops! It looks like Jimmy just got a notion to unban Brexx, who's been socking for, like, years now. Every time he wades in with the sysop buttton, mayhem ensues. Whether you agree or not about "banned means banned" and the effectiveness of banning anyone in the first place, you still have to question the wisdom of this move.

So can I just go ahead and unban, say, TheKohser with a simple "Behave yourself, I'm sure many people will be watching"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I would advise Wikipedia's admins not to take any action whatsoever if Brexx causes any further trouble. I'm serious. Let Jimbo handle it. If Jimbo didn't consult with anyone before making the decision, then he's obviously stating that he is solely willing and able to take care of any problems that result.

[Alison]

I would advise Wikipedia's admins not to take any action whatsoever if Brexx causes any further trouble. I'm serious. Let Jimbo handle it. If Jimbo didn't consult with anyone before making the decision, then he's obviously stating that he is solely willing and able to take care of any problems that result.

Jimmy has just pressed the unban button and has already walked away from the whole matter. You know it and I know it. He's not going to be around to clean up the mess or do the requisite handholding that normally accompanies a controversial unban.

EDIT: LOL!! The inevitable fallout ...

[Cla68]

I would advise Wikipedia's admins not to take any action whatsoever if Brexx causes any further trouble. I'm serious. Let Jimbo handle it. If Jimbo didn't consult with anyone before making the decision, then he's obviously stating that he is solely willing and able to take care of any problems that result.

Jimmy has just pressed the unban button and has already walked away from the whole matter. You know it and I know it. He's not going to be around to clean up the mess or do the requisite handholding that normally accompanies a controversial unban.

Then don't clean up any messes that result. I'm not kidding. Let the pieces fall where they may. If anyone brings Brexx to ANI, simply link to that discussion on Jimbo's talk page and tell them to take it up with Jimbo.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[EricBarbour]

Keep right on rockin', Cla.....as if anything will "change"..... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Measuring Wikimedia's performance

Jimbo, to continue the previous discussion which suddenly closed. You said that I "aggressively misread" what you wrote. So, could you please help me to clarify what you mean by answering the following questions? I understand that these are a lot of questions, but I think your answers would really help people understand how the Foundation is exercising leadership and management control over what is quickly becoming a multi-million dollar, complex organization with far-reaching goals and vision.

As a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees [3], are you, in effect, Sue Gardner's supervisor along with the other board members?
If so, do you and the other board members conduct an annual, formal, written performance evaluation on Ms Gardner's and the Foundation's performance? If not, why not?
If so, could you link to last year's formal evaluation, of either Ms Gardner or the Foundation, wherever it is posted? I'm not talking about budget performance, I'm talking about performance with regard to accomplishing Wikimedia's mission statement.
If a performance evaluation is done on Ms Gardner and/or the Foundation, how is it accomplished? Are performance goals (not financial) set at the beginning of the evaluation period? If so, could you link to where the most recent goals are listed?
Wikimedia does have a five year plan with measurable goals. Is Ms Gardner's performance evaluated on progression towards these five-year goals? If so, how is it done? Are annual, incremental goals set? If so, could you please link to them?
The five-year plan was approved in October 2010. Has there been a report done on the past year's Foundation performance as directly related to the five-year plan?
Is Ms Gardner evaluated and graded on performance related to any goals or objectives not listed in the five-year plan? If so, where are they listed?
Is the "philosophy" of Wikimedia that you mentioned above detailed in the "rationale" column in the five-year plan? If so, how does that philosophy prevent creation of goals for resolving problems like new editor retention and grading Foundation executives on meeting those goals?
There does appear to be a system for measuring certain aspects of Wikimedia's output. Are these purposefully designed to measure progress towards accomplishment of the five-year plan? If so, are the metrics specifically mentioned in the performance evaluations for Ms Gardner and the other Foundation executives?
Ms Gardner recently mentioned "rogue admins" as a problem. Is she developing an action plan to resolve this problem and will she be graded on it in her next performance evaluation?
In that same presentation, Ms Gardner mentioned a problem with new editor retention. I don't see any mention of this problem in the five-year plan. Will it be added as a formal action item for future performance plans for the Foundation? If so, will Ms Gardner's performance be graded on how well she resolves the problem?

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, since you are raising issues of governance, is it correct that you've expressed a desire on Wikipedia Review for Wikimedia UK to lose its charity status?[4] How would that help achieve any of these goals? Will Beback talk 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[Alison]

And blocked again. That didn't last long ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[thekohser]

Oops! It looks like Jimmy just got a notion to unban Brexx, who's been socking for, like, years now.

Let me guess... Brexx has a really cute sister who lives in London?

[Emperor]

Go Jimbo, keeping it fun. It's not like the "community"-approved blocking and unblocking system is working so great anyway.

Let me guess... Brexx has a really cute sister who lives in London?

^this

[Kelly Martin]

And blocked again. That didn't last long ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Was he blocked for misconduct, or blocked simply because he's supposed to be blocked, Jimmy's wishes notwithstanding?

[Ottava]

Oops! It looks like Jimmy just got a notion to unban Brexx, who's been socking for, like, years now. Every time he wades in with the sysop buttton, mayhem ensues. Whether you agree or not about "banned means banned" and the effectiveness of banning anyone in the first place, you still have to question the wisdom of this move.

So can I just go ahead and unban, say, TheKohser with a simple "Behave yourself, I'm sure many people will be watching"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

You could try. It would be interesting. It all depends on how many Arb friends you have to be honest - if they don't want to get rid of you you will easily survive any fallout with a possibility of having Thekohser around again.


Many blocks have no legitimate policy grounds or are extended without legitimate policy grounds. That has always been true and probably always will be true.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Cla68, since you are raising issues of governance, is it correct that you've expressed a desire on Wikipedia Review for Wikimedia UK to lose its charity status?[4] How would that help achieve any of these goals? Will Beback talk 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As cute as he is ubiquitous.

[mbz1]

Oops! It looks like Jimmy just got a notion to unban Brexx, who's been socking for, like, years now.

Let me guess... Brexx has a really cute sister who lives in London?

No, he unbanned the user because the user added so much useful content to wikipedia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
and also because Jimbo wanted to demonstrate once again that wikipedia has elements of monarchy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[mbz1]

Some quotes for the history:
by KWW

How on earth did Brexx get unblocked without community consultation? He's been banned for years, and has failed to be unblocked via BASC.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

by KWW

You are aware that he is the owner of over 180 blocked socks, and has been attempting to persuade other users to "trade" accounts with him in order to evade his ban? And in three years of block evasion, has never learned to edit?—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

by MuZemike

Can you also unban and unblock [[User:Vote (X) for Change]], as well, or should I do that? It's only fair. –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

by Don't Talk With Me aka Brexx

Can you all just calm down, geez....look at all my edits, they are all in good faith and all backed by reliable source. Jimbo is giving me a chance and he is the only one who believed in me,.....He is the founder of this site, and when he gives me a chance, you should all respect his decision and stop your rants. [[User:Don't Talk With Me|Don't Talk With Me]] ([[User talk:Don't Talk With Me|talk]]) 00:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading the post by Don't Talk With Me aka Brexx, I understand that wikipedia simply could not do without this user. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

by Jimbo Wales

"I support the re-block based on "Actually, you were corrupting release dates and sources by the fourth article you edited."--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)"

Oh, Jimmy, how could you be so cruel after Brexx called you " the founder of this site"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[The Joy]

Meanwhile, on Cla68's talkpage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462864743

Your questions about Sue Gardner's evaluation are better placed to members of the HR-Committee of the board, who can give you details.

I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed though. Your usual hostility hinges on an assumption that we aren't doing things in the right way, when we are. There is a written evaluation, it does take into account quantifiable goals as well as other metrics.

I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[Eppur si muove]

Meanwhile, on Cla68's talkpage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462864743

I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Typical fucking Jimbo.

[Ottava]

Meanwhile, on Cla68's talkpage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462864743

I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Typical fucking Jimbo.

I've volunteered to help. Jimbo doesn't really like that. I think it really bothered him when my pages were imported over. He didn't seem too happy in email at the time.

[mbz1]

Meanwhile, on Cla68's talkpage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462864743

Your questions about Sue Gardner's evaluation are better placed to members of the HR-Committee of the board, who can give you details.

I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed though. Your usual hostility hinges on an assumption that we aren't doing things in the right way, when we are. There is a written evaluation, it does take into account quantifiable goals as well as other metrics.

I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And Peter Cohen responded

Well looking at Cla68's contributions, he/she does seem to spend a lot of time helping the project by actually helping thr project by largely editing content. Have you considered the possibility that your arrogance, as exampled by this post, might actually contribute to people feeling the need to follow Wikipedia Review?--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Again this unexplained Jimbo's phenomenon: At the same day unilaterally unbanning a user who apparently cannot even edit, and attacking a content contributor, who dared to criticize wikipedia.

Actually all this made me feel so much better. I used to think that Jimbo knows what he's saying and doing, but now I see he does not. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Rhindle]

Jimbo is never wrong. And if you show him to be wrong you're an arrogrant, sniveling, snide, obnoxious, toxic troll

[Kelly Martin]

Again this unexplained Jimbo's phenomenon: At the same day unilaterally unbanning a user who apparently cannot even edit, and attacking a content contributor, who dared to criticize wikipedia.

Actually all this made me feel so much better. I used to think that Jimbo knows what he's saying and doing, but now I see he does not. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

No, he does. It's just that Jimbo does not care about content, but does very much care about participation, and more importantly donations. The unanswered question here is, what did Brexx do to get Jimmy to unban him? Did he make a large donation, or otherwise influence Jimmy where it counts? I don't think Brexx is of the feminine persuasion, so sex is presumably out. That pretty much leaves money, power, and access. Which one did Brexx have to offer, and which one did he actually offer?

[mbz1]

Again this unexplained Jimbo's phenomenon: At the same day unilaterally unbanning a user who apparently cannot even edit, and attacking a content contributor, who dared to criticize wikipedia.

Actually all this made me feel so much better. I used to think that Jimbo knows what he's saying and doing, but now I see he does not. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

No, he does. It's just that Jimbo does not care about content, but does very much care about participation, and more importantly donations. The unanswered question here is, what did Brexx do to get Jimmy to unban him? Did he make a large donation, or otherwise influence Jimmy where it counts? I don't think Brexx is of the feminine persuasion, so sex is presumably out. That pretty much leaves money, power, and access. Which one did Brexx have to offer, and which one did he actually offer?

Kelly, I have a difficult time to believe that a person who makes such posts

I just repelaced it with a source that said November 18.....but since earliest release dates are the one's that should be put in the infobox, i changed it back..........anyway, you want to be friends and help each other or not?[[User:Don't Talk With Me|Don't Talk With Me]] ([[User talk:Don't Talk With Me|talk]]) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

is able to offer anything at all, except of course he offered Jimbo to be friends (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1: