Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Start

Start of review
Several hours ago, User:Jimbo Wales deleted 2 subpages (this and this of the Wikimedia Ethics project, apparently in response to a request on Wikipedia. I left a note on RCA when I first saw it, and have since discussed it on IRC and found the discussion on his WP talk. He also indef blocked the primary contributor to the page.

It's quite clear to me that this is out of process:
 * 1) The project does seem to fall within Wikiversity's scope, as established by precedent in numerous and exhaustive discussions surrounding most of the other pages in the Wikimedia Ethics project. As this page was primarily simply an investigation into breaching projects that have taken place on Wikipedia, it is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia studies.
 * 2) Unlike the materials in that project that were found to be objectionable, this was because they were perceived to be attacks or inappropriate criticism of individual Wikipedia editors. This page does not do that.
 * 3) Since the page seems within scope and I didn't see anything in User:Privatemusings' other contributions, the block was inappropriate as well.
 * 4) The only "background" to this seems to be this note on Jimbo's WP talk page, which is insufficient reason for the actions he performed here.

While Jimmy is perhaps deservedly venerated by some or our community, I don't think we would let this stand if any of our Custodians went outside of process in this fashion, and he should go by the same standards that we do. I would like to have a community review of this to settle the following:
 * 1) Does this project lie within our scope (it seems to fit within current policy, therefore this can't be resolved at WV:RFD).
 * 2) Should User:Jimbo Wales be required to engage in community discussion before using sysop tools? (He has neither gone through mentorship nor an RFA here, and is hardly an active contributor.


 * Thank you. I agree completely and would like to emphasize that what I want to do here is empower this community to have stronger policies against this kind of trolling and disruption.  You have important work to do here.  One of the most important ways to build a community is to set down very clearly what you are NOT.  Strong community does not come from an "anything goes" attitude - but from rallying around a set of principles that define the mission in such a way that productive work can be accomplished.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimmy, the main policy that went through for dealing with these situations was Community Review/Policy and process, which is why we're here now. Various limiting policies were discussed as well, but we couldn't come to agreement on a line that wouldn't end up throwing out babies in the bathwater, so case-by-case discussions and the following of precedent were adopted to allow better flexibility. --SB_Johnny talk 12:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the pages you deleted Jim, nor am I familiar with any history that may be regurgitating in this discussion (I'm pretty new to WV). But I'm guessing the two pages were offensive in some fundamental way, and that a Wikimedia Foundation policy generally was enough to justify the deletion..? If it was simply troll content, would a policy necessarily have addressed the issue? I take it a no-deletion policy is now considered not possible? Perhaps its the experience of others that such a liberal policy only feeds trolls, I dunno. In my experience it is weak and premature policy that feeds trolls.


 * What I'm mostly wondering is if it is a policy that is needed to "empower" this community, or more support for the community in the first place so that we can realistically create policy? As I've said, I am new to the community, but on seeing mention of the WMF Board discussing the closure of Wikiversity, my commitment to helping build this community is wavering. So, you could say you and the board is presently disempowering a community and prolonging the absence of policy therefore.


 * I am not saying 'keep out of it' quite the opposite. I'm asking for a clearer indication of what you think the Board expects, what their commitment is to Wikiversity, and what they think they can do to help strengthen the community and not undermine it. I think a statement such as this is now needed more than ever if empowerment is what its about. Thanks Leighblackall 06:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This wasn't a Board action; it was a personal intervention by Jimbo, followed by a discussion with the Board in parallel with this discussion here. –SJ + > 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Leighblackall, the pages were Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments and Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments/planning. Sorry for the confusion. --SB_Johnny talk 12:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ahead of time for your thoughts on these issues. --SB_Johnny talk 13:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion and the right of Jimbo, as a member of the WMF board, to take actions such as this as he considers appropriate and in the interests of this project or sister projects. The block, or more specifically the length of the block, is perhaps excessive. On the material in question, that something may be in scope, or at least as it is currently set out, does not mean it is appropriate. In my view, most of the "Wikimedia Ethics" work that we've seen has been misguided and poorly thought out. This is simply the latest example. Discussions about such content can be carried out at WV:RFD. Just because content doesn't necessarily fall outside any guidelines it doesn't mean we can't consider deleting it at RFD.
 * I would acknowledge that it would be helpful if Jimbo could explain his reasons for taking these actions. I can fully understand why he has done but it would be useful for everyone to have a clear statement about this situation that can provide guidance as to what future work is and isn't appropriate.
 * I think a few in the community here are being naive to think we can reasonably expect to host projects such as this or should consider doing. These kinds of projects are clearly going to be controversial and as a small project I don't believe we really have the policies, guidelines, and processes in place to deal with any problems that will inevitably arise. We would be much better focusing on creating learning resources that have a much wider appeal to the public and aren't going to cause as much hassle. I think people are perhaps attracted by the excitement of these kinds of project but blind to reality of the consequences. We've seen Wikiversity try to act as the Court of the Wikimedia Foundation and analyse conflicts that have occurred elsewhere and inevitably found users turning up irritated about that. We now have attempts to organise sock puppetry and similar "experiments" on our sister projects that would violate their policies and some seen unable to foresee that might not go well.
 * Nothing of any value would come from allowing this project to continue here. Jimbo is completely right to try to nip this in the bud to allow us to concentrate on creating proper learning resources that might be of use to someone. Adambro 13:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's undeniably true that the WMF board could grant its members individual rights to do pretty much anything on WMF projects. I don't believe for a moment that they would ever actually pass such a motion though. Board membership is a red herring here. 87.254.92.101 14:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Adambro's comments:
 * Jimbo clearly did not have time to discuss this with the board, and his current position is honorary in any case. He's also not supposed to interfere with content in this manner according to the general rules (and/or laws) of the game. I should also point out that other pages in that project failed to be deleted at RFD because there was no policy to exclude them, and these pages are arguably less offensive than some of the others were.
 * From what I understand (and I've also read some of Privatemusings' comments on the project at Wikipedia Review), the goal here is to examine the ethics of these "breaching experiments". The experiments were already going on (and I suspect continue to this day), so there's no harm discussing them and documenting them. On the contrary, having them in an open document like this should be helpful for those who are on the other side and are looking for ways to prevent the breaches and/or the problems the experiments are meant to expose.
 * As far as Jimbo having free rein here, I should point out that the last time he got involved turned out to have very destructive consequences for the community, and in fact he was less than honest in his description of the "endorsement" he recieved from the 'crats. He needs to discuss things in the open, on the wiki, with the full participation of the community. His status as founder does not give him license to act unilaterally on this wiki. --SB_Johnny talk 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My similar deletion
This is a page I deleted. It was a socking guide. I deleted it with a user page statement as to the reason why. Discussion can be found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, as the primary admin who first took it upon himself to deal with this issue on March 1st, I am sadden that no one came to me first, especially when I deleted the most harmful of the material. I find it odd how my deletion was ignored in the original discussion, and that it seems as if Wikiversity took no steps towards correcting the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I'm glad you've been on the case, but I don't understand what your issue is here. Who was supposed to come to you, and what were you expecting?
 * From my perspective, the issue here is how it was handled by Jimbo, and what we should do from here. --SB_Johnny talk 20:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This shows that RTG knew of my deletion and instead of coming to me, went to Jimbo and acted as if no action was taken about the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I rolled back one of RTG's contribs as trolling. If you feel more response is required, you should make the response. --SB_Johnny talk 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)