James Heilman removed from WMF board

[thekohser]

The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

That is a completely tasteless comment.

It's a fairly tasteless organization, though, you have to admit.

[Anroth]

The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

That is a completely tasteless comment.

I dont know, there are some comparisons.

If you take the WMF as the fat and lazy plantation owners and the 'volunteers' as the slaves toiling away for no reward....

Granted where you have slaves, you have whips, and as yet the WMF has been unable to find a way to forcibly make people work on wikipedia. But I am sure they are working on it...

[Moral Hazard]

The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

That is a completely tasteless comment.

You've been offended far worse by my comments.

[Kingsindian]

This is a disturbing precedent in which the clique has purged an elected board member and we really must keep up a drumbeat for more information.

The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

I have no idea, but my speculation would be that it would be something really minor and stupid. There is a quote, attributed to Kissinger: "The battle in academia is so vicious because the stakes are so low." I think one can say the same about Wikipedia generally.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Jim]

Jimbo now says the removal was "for cause"

Jimbo, will you support an amendment to the bylaws prohibiting the removal of community-elected trustees without cause? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, as I haven't thought through the detailed implications. But in this case, it isn't relevant as this was a removal for cause.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe state the cause within 24 hours? How long does it take to craft a reason for some seemingly arbitrary action? If you did not have a clear reason for the action, why the hell did you do it? And why is it so hard to state it that a gross delay is required? Edison (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Because a man's reputation is at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We will discover what "cause" in due course, I expect...

[thekohser]

I believe Jimbo is directly challenging us here at Wikipediocracy. Shall we come up with a quick list of 4 or 5 things, then someone (like Randy) can go post it back to Jimbo?

I expect they'll just wait for the next thing to distract attention and hope this dies. That seems to be the normal strategy. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

:::Can you give even one example of that ever happening? Is there some lingering question you have from some past event that you'd like to raise with the board?--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Kelly Martin]

Jimbo now says the removal was "for cause"

Jimbo, will you support an amendment to the bylaws prohibiting the removal of community-elected trustees without cause? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, as I haven't thought through the detailed implications. But in this case, it isn't relevant as this was a removal for cause.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe state the cause within 24 hours? How long does it take to craft a reason for some seemingly arbitrary action? If you did not have a clear reason for the action, why the hell did you do it? And why is it so hard to state it that a gross delay is required? Edison (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Because a man's reputation is at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We will discover what "cause" in due course, I expect...

It was remarkably irresponsible of him to state that it was a "removal for cause" in advance of Legal coming up with a statement that addresses the issue,while at the same time demanding that others not talk about it. But Jimbo isn't exactly known for keeping his mouth shut in situations when he ought to have done so. You'd think that after over a decade of making such mistakes over and over again, he'd eventually learn, but, no, apparently not.

Any reasonable organization would have removed him from any position of authority because of his glaring incompetence, but....

[thekohser]

It was remarkably irresponsible of him to state that it was a "removal for cause" in advance of Legal coming up with a statement that addresses the issue,while at the same time demanding that others not talk about it. But Jimbo isn't exactly known for keeping his mouth shut in situations when he ought to have done so. You'd think that after over a decade of making such mistakes over and over again, he'd eventually learn, but, no, apparently not.

Any reasonable organization would have removed him from any position of authority because of his glaring incompetence, but....

Yes, indeed.

But, I have to admit, Jimbo's overt actions regarding his mouth and Heilman's reputation gives me some glimmer of hope that the "cause" for removal was "insufficient deference to Der Jimbo".

[Kelly Martin]

It would be quite funny if Dr. Heilman decided to sue Der Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation on the basis of Jimbo's statement. That statement is defamatory, and Heilman likely has a fairly strong claim, especially given his occupation, for a defamation action.

I'm sure the real problem is that Dr. Heilman didn't "mesh" with the rest of the Board (not surprising, since the Board have been carefully selected, ever since the Night of Long Knives when Danny Wool tried to engineer a coup that was blocked by Kat Walsh, to be yes-men to Jimbo) and was ejected for that reason.

[Vigilant]

The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

That is a completely tasteless comment.

I can imagine a remake of Django Unchained starring Jimmy Wales as Old Man Carrucan and James Heilman as Django!

[Anroth]

It would be quite funny if Dr. Heilman decided to sue Der Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation on the basis of Jimbo's statement. That statement is defamatory, and Heilman likely has a fairly strong claim, especially given his occupation, for a defamation action.

Meh, only if he actually wasnt removed for cause.

[Kelly Martin]

It would be quite funny if Dr. Heilman decided to sue Der Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation on the basis of Jimbo's statement. That statement is defamatory, and Heilman likely has a fairly strong claim, especially given his occupation, for a defamation action.

Meh, only if he actually wasnt removed for cause.

No, it would also be defamation if he was removed for a "cause" that would not be generally viewed as detrimental to his reputation more generally (e.g. "didn't get along with Der Jimbo"). By not stating the reason, but stating that there was a reason, Jimbo creates an impression that Dr. Heilman's character was found wanting, and given his role as a physician, that impression alone is enough to meet the requirement for a defamation action.

Jimbo needs to learn to keep his trap shut, but it's really hard for narcissists to not babble when they think someone has wronged them.

[Moral Hazard]

If only there was a way to focus Wales's attention

[Vigilant]

Jimbo now says the removal was "for cause"

Jimbo, will you support an amendment to the bylaws prohibiting the removal of community-elected trustees without cause? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, as I haven't thought through the detailed implications. But in this case, it isn't relevant as this was a removal for cause.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe state the cause within 24 hours? How long does it take to craft a reason for some seemingly arbitrary action? If you did not have a clear reason for the action, why the hell did you do it? And why is it so hard to state it that a gross delay is required? Edison (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Because a man's reputation is at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We will discover what "cause" in due course, I expect...

It was remarkably irresponsible of him to state that it was a "removal for cause" in advance of Legal coming up with a statement that addresses the issue,while at the same time demanding that others not talk about it. But Jimbo isn't exactly known for keeping his mouth shut in situations when he ought to have done so. You'd think that after over a decade of making such mistakes over and over again, he'd eventually learn, but, no, apparently not.

Any reasonable organization would have removed him from any position of authority because of his glaring incompetence, but....

The WMF has a PR person, correct?
Can they not tell Jimbo to STFU so they can do their job?

[Vigilant]

It would be quite funny if Dr. Heilman decided to sue Der Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation on the basis of Jimbo's statement. That statement is defamatory, and Heilman likely has a fairly strong claim, especially given his occupation, for a defamation action.

Meh, only if he actually wasnt removed for cause.

No, it would also be defamation if he was removed for a "cause" that would not be generally viewed as detrimental to his reputation more generally (e.g. "didn't get along with Der Jimbo"). By not stating the reason, but stating that there was a reason, Jimbo creates an impression that Dr. Heilman's character was found wanting, and given his role as a physician, that impression alone is enough to meet the requirement for a defamation action.

Jimbo needs to learn to keep his trap shut, but it's really hard for narcissists to not babble when they think someone has wronged them.

Is there anything useful that he's good at?

[Poetlister]

Any reasonable organization would have removed him from any position of authority because of his glaring incompetence, but....

They can't easily remove him because he's the Sole Flounder and public face of the thing. The PR would be awful.

[Anroth]

It would be quite funny if Dr. Heilman decided to sue Der Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation on the basis of Jimbo's statement. That statement is defamatory, and Heilman likely has a fairly strong claim, especially given his occupation, for a defamation action.

Meh, only if he actually wasnt removed for cause.

No, it would also be defamation if he was removed for a "cause" that would not be generally viewed as detrimental to his reputation more generally (e.g. "didn't get along with Der Jimbo"). By not stating the reason, but stating that there was a reason, Jimbo creates an impression that Dr. Heilman's character was found wanting, and given his role as a physician, that impression alone is enough to meet the requirement for a defamation action.

Jimbo needs to learn to keep his trap shut, but it's really hard for narcissists to not babble when they think someone has wronged them.

Difference in UK/US law then I am guessing. 'He was removed for cause' would not be considered defamation here unless he actually was not removed for cause, as its a plain statement of fact.

Which of course could change if he decided to lawyer up and prove there was no legitimate reason.

Still, Jimbo needs to keep his trap shut.

[NotNormal]

I remember back in late March 2015, Heilman was contemplating interfering with other people's livelihoods, by "reporting" them to sites like Elance and Fiverr. I doubt that had anything to do with his dismissal from the WMF board, but it did showcase for me how much Heilman imagined himself some sort of "volunteer police officer" when it came to Wikipedia, which is rather idiotic.

I wonder who will be the first to scramble together a comment to the mailing list? Oh, heavens... I should have known.

He in fact did so. I was blocked on Elance for about a week (not that it matters is that is less than 1% of my business). I then left the site once reinstated. If he is willing to violate privacy and get others to do it as well, I don't want any part of it.

[NotNormal]

Fact is, I believe DocJames was removed for his on-Wiki conduct. In addition to his vigilante tactics against paid editing, his NPOV pushing is out of control. I won't be surprised when we hear the full story behind his removal.

[lilburne]

The plantation owners have dispensed with the slaves uppity spokesperson. What more is there to say?

That is a completely tasteless comment.

You sound like Jimmy Wales. The truth sometimes leaves a bitter taste.

[thekohser]

The mainstream media has weighed in on the matter.

Gold stars to any WPO regulars who leave a comment on that story.

You have a comment now.

And tons of comments now, including a battle between me and biomedical engineer, David Richfield!

[Earthy Astringent]

Can someone explain to someone like me who doesn't really understand how the WMF board is comprised, and what their role is in guiding the foundation, how this removal is significant? Was Hellman the only "elected" representative? If so, how did the other board members gain their seats?

Try this: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees

And this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... es#History

And this: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Hi ... _the_Board

So the chapters and "thematic" orgnaizations get seats. All politics are local.

[Randy from Boise]

Can someone explain to someone like me who doesn't really understand how the WMF board is comprised, and what their role is in guiding the foundation, how this removal is significant? Was Hellman the only "elected" representative? If so, how did the other board members gain their seats?

Try this: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees

And this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... es#History

And this: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Hi ... _the_Board

So the chapters and "thematic" orgnaizations get seats. All politics are local.

It is absurd that the inside baseball schmoozing insider buttkissers of the "chapters" have appointed set-asides instead of standing election with other candidates for community decision. That's an absolute minimum change that needs to be made with the structure of the Board.

RfB

[Earthy Astringent]

I see what you are saying, but that's how it works in any political organization. Those that put in the work at the grassroots level get the power.

[Midsize Jake]

I see what you are saying, but that's how it works in any political organization. Those that put in the work at the grassroots level get the power.

Unless the political organization is a major US political party, of course.

[Liz99]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

As much as he might misstep, I think having one foot in the Board room and yet accessible to people on his talk page is a no win situation. He says too little, he's being secretive; he says too much, he's an oaf.

[Vigilant]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

As much as he might misstep, I think having one foot in the Board room and yet accessible to people on his talk page is a no win situation. He says too little, he's being secretive; he says too much, he's an oaf.

He's an oaf regardless of how much he says.

There might not be a person more ill suited to being the face of a charitable institution than Jimmy Donal Wales.

The only time he removes his foot from his mouth is to switch feet.

[Midsize Jake]

As much as he might misstep, I think having one foot in the Board room and yet accessible to people on his talk page is a no win situation. He says too little, he's being secretive; he says too much, he's an oaf.

It's a no-win situation for him, because he's too narcissistic to view problems from any perspective or motivation beyond that of his own need for personal self-aggrandizement. He can't manage other people's expectations because he can't really empathize with other people or understand their needs, unless of course they're completely aligned with his own. But that doesn't mean the "Jimbotalk" page isn't useful to him - in effect, it gives him a way to create the illusion that he's at least trying to manage expectations (which, under the circumstances, is about the minimum that should be expected of him). In that sense it's invaluable to him, even though there's no "win" involved - but regardless, it obviously doesn't do anyone else any good whatsoever.

[Liz99]

It's a no-win situation for him, because he's too narcissistic to view problems from any perspective or motivation beyond that of his own need for personal self-aggrandizement. He can't manage other people's expectations because he can't really empathize with other people or understand their needs, unless of course they're completely aligned with his own. But that doesn't mean the "Jimbotalk" page isn't useful to him - in effect, it gives him a way to create the illusion that he's at least trying to manage expectations (which, under the circumstances, is about the minimum that should be expected of him). In that sense it's invaluable to him, even though there's no "win" involved - but regardless, it obviously doesn't do anyone else any good whatsoever.

It sounds like some folks here are irritated simply by his existence. Although if I bet if he had left Wikipedia once the Board was established, some people would criticize him then, too.

I'm not defending him or putting him on a pedestal and I don't see him as a pinnacle of virtue. But it seems like the dislike of Wales runs so deep and is so established that there is nothing he could ever do to change that opinion.

[Vigilant]

It's a no-win situation for him, because he's too narcissistic to view problems from any perspective or motivation beyond that of his own need for personal self-aggrandizement. He can't manage other people's expectations because he can't really empathize with other people or understand their needs, unless of course they're completely aligned with his own. But that doesn't mean the "Jimbotalk" page isn't useful to him - in effect, it gives him a way to create the illusion that he's at least trying to manage expectations (which, under the circumstances, is about the minimum that should be expected of him). In that sense it's invaluable to him, even though there's no "win" involved - but regardless, it obviously doesn't do anyone else any good whatsoever.

It sounds like some folks here are irritated simply by his existence. Although if I bet if he had left Wikipedia once the Board was established, some people would criticize him then, too.

I'm not defending him or putting him on a pedestal and I don't see him as a pinnacle of virtue. But it seems like the dislike of Wales runs so deep and is so established that there is nothing he could ever do to change that opinion.

We have at least 10 years of running evidence that shows him to be a person of very low character.

What do you base your opinions of him on?

[Anthonyhcole]

They can't easily remove [Jimmy] because he's the Sole Flounder and public face of the thing. The PR would be awful.

If Jimmy were removed it would be no PR problem at all for Wikipedia or WMF. You're vastly over stating his importance.

[Midsize Jake]

It sounds like some folks here are irritated simply by his existence.

It probably does seem that way on the surface, but there are lots of ways to define "existence" in this context. And what if he stops existing - do they replace him? Does he do anything currently that might call for him to be replaced? You might compare him to the upper-level manager who provides no ideas and no useful work but still gets all the credit, but then you'd have to ask "credit for what?" Few people here want to be hypocritical by implying that Wikipedia is so worthy an enterprise that anyone should get credit for it, at least in the traditional sense of the term.

Jimbo's basically just a figurehead at this point, and to the extent that Wikipedia's interests are advanced by their having a figurehead, that's certainly irritating. But lest we get too far off-topic, the issue here (which in itself is also off-topic) is whether or not the Jimbotalk page performs a positive or useful function, particularly in a case like Heilman's "removal" in which users have a legitimate reason to want an answer to a particular question - and in which Jimbo presumably knows what that answer is, and isn't saying.

More to the point, if Jimbotalk isn't positive or useful to the WP user base, and it's the only forum on Wikipedia that Jimbo actually monitors and responds in, maybe Jimbo himself isn't positive or useful to the WP user base either. Something like that, which seems so obvious to us, can become somewhat obvious even to the WP user base in situations like this one.

[Zoloft]

There's also a bit of a 'comment bias' where the people who think he's handling it well probably aren't commenting. In my opinion he should have just directed all queries to Legal and shut up.

[Randy from Boise]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

As much as he might misstep, I think having one foot in the Board room and yet accessible to people on his talk page is a no win situation. He says too little, he's being secretive; he says too much, he's an oaf.

It's two days since the Heilman/WMF announcement and nary a peep.

If the drama monster is ramping up, the Board has nobody but themselves to blame. Not a soul. It was ridiculous axing him without explanation. It doesn't take a seer to figure out how that turns out...

The whole "we removed him for cause but don't want to sully his reputation by saying what that cause is" line is also ridiculous.

Of course, now we're going into a long holiday weekend, so there will be plenty of inertia on the part of those wanting to do nothing... Mañana, mañana...

RfB

[SB_Johnny]

I'm not defending him or putting him on a pedestal and I don't see him as a pinnacle of virtue. But it seems like the dislike of Wales runs so deep and is so established that there is nothing he could ever do to change that opinion.

Quite a few of the "old-timers" here have had the misfortune of being engaged with private correspondence with Jimmy. Hopefully that won't happen to you.

[SB_Johnny]

There's also a bit of a 'comment bias' where the people who think he's handling it well probably aren't commenting. In my opinion he should have just directed all queries to Legal and shut up.

Considering how well practiced he is in letting threads run out of steam and letting the archive bot sweep it away, one has to just step back and be awestruck at the stupidity of commenting on this on his talk page... but then again Ms. Marsden probably wouldn't be surprised.

[Kelly Martin]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

There are lots of people who manage to walk the line that he's tripping over constantly; it's not that it's impossible to do it, it's just that Jimbo does not know how, nor recognizes that he's failing to do so.

In this case all he had to do was say "The decision we regretfully reached today was made in the best interests of the organization. A more complete statement will be forthcoming shortly." And yet he can't even manage that.

[Vigilant]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

There are lots of people who manage to walk the line that he's tripping over constantly; it's not that it's impossible to do it, it's just that Jimbo does not know how, nor recognizes that he's failing to do so.

In this case all he had to do was say "The decision we regretfully reached today was made in the best interests of the organization. A more complete statement will be forthcoming shortly." And yet he can't even manage that.

To be honest, that''s what the PR person from the WMF should be doing.

Jimbo shouldn't be saying shit.
In a real organization, they'd have his nuts in the wringer.

[Randy from Boise]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

There are lots of people who manage to walk the line that he's tripping over constantly; it's not that it's impossible to do it, it's just that Jimbo does not know how, nor recognizes that he's failing to do so.

In this case all he had to do was say "The decision we regretfully reached today was made in the best interests of the organization. A more complete statement will be forthcoming shortly." And yet he can't even manage that.

To be honest, that''s what the PR person from the WMF should be doing.

Jimbo shouldn't be saying shit.
In a real organization, they'd have his nuts in the wringer.

The WMF Board hires the Executive. JW is a Board Member for Life, as far as I am aware. Ergo, there is nobody to put his gonads into a pulverizing device. He's sort of like the barely functional owner of a football team with a dysfunctional front office. The Daniel Snyder of online information services...

RfB

[Vigilant]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

There are lots of people who manage to walk the line that he's tripping over constantly; it's not that it's impossible to do it, it's just that Jimbo does not know how, nor recognizes that he's failing to do so.

In this case all he had to do was say "The decision we regretfully reached today was made in the best interests of the organization. A more complete statement will be forthcoming shortly." And yet he can't even manage that.

To be honest, that''s what the PR person from the WMF should be doing.

Jimbo shouldn't be saying shit.
In a real organization, they'd have his nuts in the wringer.

The WMF Board hires the Executive. JW is a Board Member for Life, as far as I am aware. Ergo, there is nobody to put his gonads into a pulverizing device. He's sort of like the barely functional owner of a football team with a dysfunctional front office. The Daniel Snyder of online information services...

RfB

They bylaws are able to be amended.
This is a prime example of why they should be.

[Kelly Martin]

It is absurd that the inside baseball schmoozing insider buttkissers of the "chapters" have appointed set-asides instead of standing election with other candidates for community decision. That's an absolute minimum change that needs to be made with the structure of the Board.

The real change would be to go back to the membership structure that Alex Roshuk created for the organization in the first place, with dues-paying members who would elect a majority of the board in the same way that most other non-profit organizations elect their governing bodies. But Der Jimbo didn't like those bylaws, undermined them from the day they took effect, and surreptitiously amended them to change the WMF into a non-member organization in (I believe) 2007 in order to ensure that nobody would ever undercut Jimbo's authority to exercise control the organization.

[Randy from Boise]

It is absurd that the inside baseball schmoozing insider buttkissers of the "chapters" have appointed set-asides instead of standing election with other candidates for community decision. That's an absolute minimum change that needs to be made with the structure of the Board.

The real change would be to go back to the membership structure that Alex Roshuk created for the organization in the first place, with dues-paying members who would elect a majority of the board in the same way that most other non-profit organizations elect their governing bodies. But Der Jimbo didn't like those bylaws, undermined them from the day they took effect, and surreptitiously amended them to change the WMF into a non-member organization in (I believe) 2007 in order to ensure that nobody would ever undercut Jimbo's authority to exercise control the organization.

It is definitely a structure designed to perpetuate his own individual control — 10 member board, of which his seat permanent; appointed majority; ability to remove elected members with simple majority vote with or without cause... If he were a strong political personality actually interested in exerting central control, it's hard to design a more perfect apparatus for that.

That's not really how JW rolls, however. His day-to-day control over En-WP is dwindling and if he has significant control over daily operations of the cancerously-growing San Francisco office, I'm not seeing it. He's got it on cruise control, his celebrity as Public Face of Wikipedia strokes his ego and helps keep the honoraria rolling in. He remains an "internet entrepreneur" in the final analysis.

Just to be clear: I think WP gains by having a de facto celebrity such as JW as its public face. The problems start when he tries to intervene. He needs to take a page from Queen Elizabeth and butt out. Buy a dozen corgis, remodel the mansion in the country...

RfB

[lilburne]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

As much as he might misstep, I think having one foot in the Board room and yet accessible to people on his talk page is a no win situation. He says too little, he's being secretive; he says too much, he's an oaf.

It's two days since the Heilman/WMF announcement and nary a peep.

If the drama monster is ramping up, the Board has nobody but themselves to blame. Not a soul. It was ridiculous axing him without explanation. It doesn't take a seer to figure out how that turns out...

Damn you lot are so stupid it is no wonder you are in chains.

You are dysfunctional, separated and unable to effect the organization required to effect a common cause. Like all web2.0rhea sites the management will sit back until you have all finished frothing and got the fuck over whatever it is you are in a lather about. None of you or at least not enough of you will do anything to affect the money coming in. Your editing activities can all be replaced by a new starry-eyed 13yo. The only person that thinks that you are important to WP is yourselves. Get over it, get back to sucking shit through a straw, or leave.

[Kingsindian]

It's crazy, editors clamoring answers, demanding explanations ASAP and when Wales makes a comment, the shit really hits the fan and now people are talking about lawsuits on this thread. I guess the only Wales could have handled it better was not to communicate at all with folks on his talk page but then people would complain about him being unresponsive and not transparent.

There are lots of people who manage to walk the line that he's tripping over constantly; it's not that it's impossible to do it, it's just that Jimbo does not know how, nor recognizes that he's failing to do so.

In this case all he had to do was say "The decision we regretfully reached today was made in the best interests of the organization. A more complete statement will be forthcoming shortly." And yet he can't even manage that.

To be honest, that''s what the PR person from the WMF should be doing.

Jimbo shouldn't be saying shit.
In a real organization, they'd have his nuts in the wringer.

I for one welcome our Dear Leader's pronouncements. It is always good for information's sake to have an unguarded statement rather than some banal PR statement.

That is not to deny that Jimbo's foot is permanently in his mouth. Or that his statement was mostly useless. But I would like him to run his mouth off as much as possible.

[lilburne]

Latest is that he wouldn't keep his big fat gob shut.

According to Patricio Lorente

I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
essential condition for effective governance.

now the rest of you can shut the fuck up too:

Since all members of the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
required to be effective.
...
From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded.

Bigger caliber straws will be provided in the near future

[Kingsindian]

Link.

Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations.

Someone able to parse that bit of PR-speak?

As far as I can see, the rest is just a big "gfy".

[Drijfzand]

they vote out the only (as far as I know) member of the board with a Doctoral degree.

A medical doctor is a professional degree, like a law degree, which does not require or involve research (apart from joint M.D./Ph.D.).

In the U.S., medical doctors in have had scientific courses on the level of B.S.E. or B.S. courses, and they usually are smart.
In Sweden, medical students have had straight A's in gymnasium, so they are quite smart (and good at short-term memorization).

Doc James has been discussed before, and I don't trust him.

I don't trust him either.
I'm more willing to give the WMF, rather than Doc James, the benefit of the doubt in this case.

[lilburne]

Someone able to parse that bit of PR-speak?

I did.

[thekohser]

Link.

Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations.

Someone able to parse that bit of PR-speak?

As far as I can see, the rest is just a big "gfy".

First, here's a link to the statement. (I would like to encourage our contributors here to provide a linked URL when you quote something from somewhere on the web.)

My own interpretation of the mealy-mouthed blather from Patricio Lorente -- and keep in mind, my brain is rich and full of wild conjecture -- is that there is something unsavory going on with one or more of the board members, or with one of the executives of the Wikimedia Foundation, and that Doc James believes that this unsavory behavior should be exposed to the wider world, while the rest of the board believes it should remain covered up. So, they ejected James, and they're hoping that he keeps his trap shut, "for the good of the movement".

[Moral Hazard]

Link.

Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee

• conduct,
  responsibilities, and
  confidentiality.

Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
essential condition for effective governance.

Extended quotation by KW

Thus, either Patricio Lorente is engaging in obfuscation or Patricio is accusing James Heilman of the following:
1. Failure to perform a responsibility:

• 1.a) James was given a responsibility to perform.
  1.b) James failed to do so.
  1.c) James was notified that his failure to perform his responsibility was serious.
  1.d) James was given a new responsibility to perform.
  1.e) James failed to do so.

The responsibility could be maintaining confidentiality or having a conflict between James's role as a board-member and other roles, since he seems to be the board-member most active with projects associated with the WMF.

Greg's instincts are often useful.