User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Pardon me, what is your name?

I ask because I am familiar with knowing you as Jimbo and wonder if this is what you prefer to be known as. I understand how wp:commonname works and realize that it supports your Wikipedia article being titled Jimmy Wales but there are strong assertions being made by high profile users that because of wp:blp, the article subject's preference supersedes wp:commonname. Consider this quote from the wp:rfar regarding Bradeley v. Chelsea Manning: "In this case, WP:COMMONNAME would not be allowed to make a naming decision over WP:BLP when it is the wish and the will of the subject." It is therefor why I ask; is it your wish and your will that your article be titled using Jimmy?—John Cline (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum - By the way, I do not recall this "wish and will" interpretation coming to bear on the will.i.am discussion, but rather the complete contrary. We can not be a house divided while expecting to stand. This "wish and will" interpretation can not be the rule for advocates of WP:LBGT sensitivities while all other groups are denied the same respect in having their wishes championed as the predominate consideration. In my opinion that is.—John Cline (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• See name clarification in page "User:Jimbo Wales" about "Jimbo" being an online moniker. In person, around other people, I would tend to refer to him as "Mr. Wales" as a formal address in mixed company. However, in smaller groups, I would expect to hear the name "Jimmy" in the person-to-person conversations. Does that make sense? -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it makes sense; as does reading the user page. What doesn't make sense, to me, is the notion that his preference could in fact supersede our wp:mos naming conventions, in particular wp:commonname. Regarding Bradley v. Chelsea, I think we will soon arrive at Chelsea Manning for the article's title, and it will happen because our policies and guidelines support such a move—unless advocacy wins the day and we adopt some form of the emerging "wish and will" doctrine, which I see as detrimental; unless of course it was to appliy to everyone; even pray tell, Jimbo, or will.i.am for that matter (it nearly took an act of congress to drop Jr. from his name, after he requested its removal).—John Cline (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

His article name is based on his actual name. His account name has no requirement for being any type of legal description. If Bradley Manning wants to have an account where he calls herself Chelsea Manning, there should be absolutely no problem with that. What exactly are you asking? (Yes. I mixed genders purposely, just for the sake of the argument.) --Onorem (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Onorem. I agree with everything you said. I apparently wasn't clear in asking my question; and should have done some research before asking it. I assumed Jimbo was the name Mr. Wales preferred to use; not because he has an account in that name, but because his name is shown as Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales and inserting "Jimbo" has meaning. Considering that William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton is titled Bill Clinton, Kenneth Stanley "Bud" Adams, Jr. is titled Bud Adams, Kenneth Stanley "Boots" Adams is titled Boots Adams, Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. is titled Al Gore and so on, I asked Mr. Wales if he had a similar preference. I suspect he does not; after reading his user page which explains his affinity to Jimbo. If I had read it first, I wouldn't have asked the question. I hope this explains my intent better; I suspect it does not.—John Cline (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

At last Clinton and Gore are commonly referred to that way by reliable sources (I'm not familliar with the other two, but I suspect the same is true). Wher reliable sources are split, or only a minority use the preferred name, the issue is a bit murky, but I'd suggest (not, AFAIK, based on any policy) that a name that is likely to cause offence to the subject is avoided (e.g. using Mohammed Ali's former name). No comment on whether that applies to the Chelsea/Bradley situation, or how the lawyer's comments affect it. MChesterMC (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You are correct that all of the examples are using the wp:commonname.—John Cline (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't agree with what I've said. From what I can tell, the main issue with people arguing on the Manning article isn't which name to use, but which gender to use when describing the subject (for the entirely of their life...) --Onorem (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question simply. I prefer the name "Jimmy Wales" in person. I have for a great many years signed "Jimbo" online and people do refer to me that in the Wikipedia context (it's a nice and mostly unique name to use so that's helpful here in the same way that any other username might be). One of the reasons I like "Jimbo" is that it's an obviously casual name and I like to interact with people on a casual basis when I'm online. WP:COMMONNAME is mostly about how the press refers to someone, and in my case that's "Jimmy Wales". Conveniently that's the name I go by in day to day life as well.

For those who are incorrectly obsessed with what birth certificates say, it's worth noting that my birth certificate (like that of Will.i.am) is in error - it says that I am "Jimmie". What someone's birth certificate says is only weak evidence of what their name really is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please reread our article on will.i.am and the talk page, of it, where it has been shown, with reliable sources (including interviews with will.i.am), that his birth certificate is not "in error", but rather that he wasn't aware of what it said until he was 25 or thereabouts. That he or his mom reportedly doesn't like what it says doesn't mean that it is in error. Fram (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fram, the odd thing about that is, I don't recall that being covered in reliable sources as a claim of fact. Isn't that original research? If this isn't OR, is this mentioned in multiple RS in direct context to the claim Will.i.am is in error. Why are we not being more sensitive to the actual wishes of the person as to how they are listed on Wikipedia> The Will.i.am situation has always seemed like editors are trying to be investigative journalists. Since we are talking about it again why not explain it and discuss the issue and how the information is being decided. We might as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get the "Will.i.am is in error" part? I have no knowledge from reliable sources that will.i.am has ever claimed that his birth certificate was in error. We have second hand reports of someone cla!iming that will.i.am said that in a private conversation, but this hasn't been confirmed anywhere. On the other hand, we have things like this, with the crucial passage "Aged 25, when a passport application resulted in him seeing his full birth certificate for the first time, he found out that his real, full name was William James Adams Jr. He was named after the father he'd never known, and whom no one in his family ever discussed. "That's not your dad; I'm your dad," his mum told him when confronted with his discovery. "When people make mistakes, as far as people that they fall in love with ... Well, that man doesn't have the right to be called your dad. That's a very powerful name that you have. You've utilised it. It's his fault that he didn't live up to that name." For Will, who's "supertight" with his mum, that was explanation enough." This source, repeated in this one, is a lot more gossipy and less reliable on its own, but as an interview with will.i.am; it directly confirms the above: “I’m never hostile and I ain’t ashamed of the name on my birth certificate." (emphasis mine) Nowhere does he claim that his birth certificate is wrong, or that it is something he doesn't want to see printed or republished. Why would we believe one editor's claim (who may have misunderstood or otherwise made a mistake) above what reliable sources claim? Why are the editors using actual newspaper reports directly about the issue said to be "investigative journalists" doing OR, when an editor who has done nothing except repeat what he claimed was said to him is being left alone and actually supported? If I had done interviews, tried to get a copy of his birth certificate, ..., then your claim that this was investigative journalism wuold have merits. Repeating easily available newspaper articles isn't worthy of that lofty title though. Fram (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"I have no knowledge from reliable sources that will.i.am has ever claimed that his birth certificate was in error. We have second hand reports of someone cla!iming that will.i.am said that in a private conversation, but this hasn't been confirmed anywhere." It doesn't need to be confirmed. Where on earth are you getting that from? Subjects of Wikipedia articles routinely contact admin and other editors to assist in correcting and fixing information on their own articles. DOB and names are routinely taken as fact from the source. If an admin (which it was) says in an edit summary "I'm sitting here with him and he says..." then we can take that on face value because all you are doing is questioning that admin if you say it hasn't been confirmed...uhm actually yeah, the subject told an editor directly and there was and is no reason to assume it to be false.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The source: Force of Will, By Craig McLean - 4:00 AM Saturday May 30, 2009 can easily be dismissed as you see nothing from Will himself in regards to the exact name. Seriously. all of the information is coming from the reporter McLean. Will i.am only talks about his perceptions of being a father. He never admits to his full name. The reporter may well have made an assumption from the discovery of his fathers name and assumed he was named exactly the same, but sons are also named the same name as the father and it not be a Jr. or even I, II and III. I know a line of three men named Ben. Grandfather, son and grandson and there is no Jr. or any of the rest. The name is a tradition, but just who is the grandson named after? This may seem like it spells out support for the claim but it really doesn't. It is the reporter making the calim and all other tabloid sources seem to have picked up from that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Star cannot be used to source facts in a BLP article. It is a very clear tabloid source repeated in another such source. I am seriously shocked that such shabby sources are the entire argument made for this BLP article subjects naming when the source themselves has contacted an admin about the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You can be seriously shocked as much as you want, I am equally seriously shocked that the say-so of one editor trumps the things reliable sources report (and your interpretation of the New Zealand source is stretching the imagination to the limit). Are you claiming that that reporter actually invented the name, his mother's reaction to it, and so on? And that that just happens to coincide with the story the Daily Star gives? Right... Fram (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

But it makes more sense to continue this discussion at either Talk:will.i.am or that the BLPN or RSN noticeboard. Fram (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to discuss this here where you brought it up Fram. What I am saying is the New Zealand source is a single source that looks to have been repeated. I am saying the Daily Sun is unacceptable to source facts as a tabloid source and that it looks like the NBC Entertainment source is only referencing the Daily Sun Story. I am saying the argument and the sources used for the current name are weak. That is what I am saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

the shoe has fallen

I will begin reviewing this ArbCom case by reading over the case itself, talk pages, and as much of the linked evidence as seems relevant. I will read over the arbcom email discussions relevant to this case. I will review policy cited by ArbCom. At that time, I will ask specific questions of ArbCom and parties to the case as I think are necessary to clarify my understanding. There are a few things that need to be kept in mind: An appeal is not a rehearing of the case. The point of the appeal is not for me to substitute my judgment of the facts nor my opinions for ArbCom's. An appeal is a constitutional safeguard to ensure that ArbCom is not stepping beyond it's scope and authority, and not engaging in patently irrational decisions. Those two taken together mean that I will not overturn or modify an ArbCom decision based solely on a sense that I would have, myself, voted differently were I a member of ArbCom. Finally, please know that I take this part of my work very seriously. In the long run, I hope that we invent a better system of checks and balances that doesn't involve me, but at the present time, my final review of ArbCom decisions is a valuable part of the overall process. There is no other realistic check on the power of ArbCom. What I would like to see in the long term is something like a set of lower courts and then an upper court of appeals. Such a system would provide the checks and balances that our current system provides, but without it depending on one person (me).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kindly note that the ArbCom has, indeed, made a procedurally and factually flawed decision. Per my email and per the discussions thereon, I request a full and impartial review by you thereon. Including a statement by an ArbCom member that quoting Teddy Roosevelt shows a "general attitude" problem, the findings by the original complainant that I was not culpable, and noting that I am basically on Wikistrike and have been away from that general topic area, other than a moderated discussion, for more than six months already. Ave atque vale Collect (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC) AGK has displayed quite an anti-intellectualism streak in recent Arbcom cases. I do not have time to go diff-hunting right at this moment, but IIRC he recently chastised someone for using a Latin phrase. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah Arbcom in general is a ridiculous mess these days. Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Latinists unite. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Count me among one of the biggest supports of Arbcom. I think they are over-worked, and generally under-appreciated. They take on the toughest situations, and try their best. That said, I'm dumbfounded at how the Tea Party case turned out, specifically (though not exclusively) the sanction against Collect. I had not followed that case while in progress. I knew it existed, but the first time I looked at it was after I saw the request for appeal by Collect. I decided to trace through the case, to see if I could understand how the committee reached their sanction. I traced through my observations at a talk page post to NW. Short version, I saw virtually nothing in the evidence, and virtually nothing in the workshop, so I was puzzled by the strong sanction. The response, and I quote: I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case The entire quote, in case someone feels my excerpt was out of context. I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case. I found some helpful things there, but honestly I just set aside some amount over time over a few weeks and read all of the talk page of the articles. I can't comment if others did the same or not but I would suspect that they did. I found that the evidence provided was good but not all encompassing. This was an interesting case, one which I was not especially enamored about (either the initial community's response or our actions). I will understand why, when all is said and done, people will label this as the worst case of 2013. But most Arbitrators also weren't given a ton to work with. We had to come up with the proposed decision functionally from scratch, and those don't end up going that well. I'm comfortable with your assessment with this as a process failure, but I'm not sure if it could have gone that much better. As for where this discussion should go...WT:A/R or the proposed decision page. Take your pick. In some fairness, the sanction itself listed some diffs, but I find them short of compelling. I think some discussion about process is in order.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Process looks like "Ban them all and let Satan sort 'em out": I think the lessons from the well-known concept of "proportional punishment" (see: Britannica online) should be noted, and change the process to have specific limits on sanctions. So, "Let the punishment sanction fit the crime". Then, if someone complains how they were topic-banned while an opponent user was not, then show the counting of violations in the logged edits. Now, if ArbCom is too busy to create a shedule of the "proportional sanctions" measured to fit the level of policy violations, then perhaps others would compile a list for them. Otherwise, it looks like machine-gun justice. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Sanctions on Wikipedia are not (supposed to be) punitive, so "let the punishment fit the crime" is not apt. Which means more than just striking the word. Diffs from two editors can show very similar behaviour, yet different sanctions for each can be merited based on the context and the amount of disruption each is causing. That's not meant particularly in reference to this case, just saying. Formerip (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC) As vocal as I have been about the problems with Arbcom, cases like this show Arbcom as their own worst enemy. Few could do more to hurt their reputation or their purpose than they can do by themselves. Additionally and has been pointed out by others having an indefinate topic ban will stay with the editor for as long as they are here. Wiki never fogives and never forgets so Collect will always be marked due to this strange and inappropriate determination by Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC) a second party to the case seeks redress I would also like to request an impartial and thorough review of the following, faulty aspects related to the decision against me and imposed sanctions. Though I first questioned AGK regarding his FoF against me on August 22, after an IP had pointed out that there was a discrepancy, and NYB suggested that AGK respond on August 23 to my comments on the PD talk page, AGK refused to reply publicly on the PD talk page, posting this on September 2 I did respond privately to Newyorkbrad, as I am sure he can verify if you wish to ask him. AGK [•] 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC) That was posted in this section of the page Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Somewhat_less_than_gratifying_proceedings_produced_some_questionable_results and was followed by emails, etc., AGK provided a reply in that section today--after the case was closed--in which he asserts that the "sound argument(s) about article content" I am accused to have ignored exist within the sources themselves. Of course, that seems to represent a judgment being made by an arbitrator on content, but more importantly, it amounts to a bit of sophistry insofar as the charge of misconduct relating to my ignoring sound arguments must be premised on interaction that occurred between Wikipedia editors working on an article. There are no conduct issues between me and the sources, conduct issues only occur between editors. The only interaction in the cited diff is of me agreeing with an assertion made by another editor. I have posted a reply discussing these points, and also on AGK's talk page User_talk:AGK#Waiting. A couple of other related comments are found in the section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Snarky_Comments as well as the section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Does_the_FoF_stating_...has_ignored_sound_arguments_about_article_content_involve_a_judgment_on_content.3F. Though I made some mistakes in editing the related pages, my efforts were largely aimed at bringing sourcing issues to the surface on that article, to which end I strove to create content based on the statements found in reliably published sources, without bias, political or otherwise. The sanction against me is excessive, and carries the stigma of an indefinite topic ban. If the FoF falsely alleging that I ignored sound arguments about article content were deleted, what would the remaining FoF indicate. Note that I have also addressed two of the other FoF against me in the section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#FoF_12:_Ubikwit --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) AGK has collapsed the thread on his talk page [1]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC) One other aspect of the voting and decision that has been gnawing at my conscience to be addressed relates to another arbitrator: Courcelles. The concerns I have with respect to Courcelles are not of the same caliber as those related to AGK, and pertain to a perception of bias that might indicate a COI (of sorts) due to an interpersonal relationship he'd established with her during past interaction on Wikipedia with Malke. His rush to judgement against me coupled with the following apparent contradictions in his statements and actions and are the basis for my concern. Votes to support the FoF against meat 16:14, 20 August Votes to topic-ban me at 01:01, 22 August Makes response to Malke request stating that Remedies related to you are the last thing I need to vote on, and, to be perfectly honest, I need to go through the evidence one more time before figuring those out on 01:39, 22 August. Responds to my query on his talk page regarding the time frames of his votes and the apparent bias indicated thereby that Most of AGK's newer FoF's were written several days before they were published on-wiki, on the internal arbwiki. A few of us, myself included, reviewed them before they were posted on 05:27, 23 August. So the question I have is, in light of the fact that even though myself and others had provided fairly strong evidence on the Evidence and Workshop pages of repeated behavioral problems demonstrated by Malke on the TPm article since 2010, when she was first sanction in relation to her editing conduct on that article, why would Courcelles be the first to cast a vote on my FoF within a day after it was posted, but tell Malke--whose FoF had been posted earlier and against whom evidence had been introduced since the case first opened--that the last thing he needed to do was vote on her FoF, etc.? And then he cast the sole vote opposing sanctions against her.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Party 3 I also don't see this is a proportionate response, although I believe the evidence (although not the evidence presented in FoF 12) supports the conclusion that Ubikwit is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. (In other words, what Ubikwit wanted added was in the sources he found, but was contradicted by other reliable sources.) I actually wasn't going to "appeal" my sanction, although I think it unjustified. If Ubikwit's appeal is to be considered, I ask that all the topic bans (but not interaction bans) be reconsidered. I think the failed motion, although not "justice", would have been a worthy experiment. The current situation is not, because of the large number of subjects considered by some to be related to the Tea Party movement. (In fact, some of the edit warring was in regard the question of whether subjects are related to the TPm, and whether that should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. In the case of living persons, WP:BLP may require that some of the "edit warring" there be reconsidered.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC) If by failed motion, you mean the motion to topic ban the gang of 14, I just explained here why I felt this would be a bad idea as proposed, but could, with a wee bit of effort, be turned into an acceptable approach.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by WTF do you people think you are doing? Is Jimbo's talk page suddenly RFAR.2? Do any of you seriously believe he or the board or the WMF are ever going to wade in and undo an arbcom decision? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I for one don't but I do hope that if enough people complain that Jimbo, the WMF or the Arbcom themselves will fix the problems that have been addressed over and over and over with the Arbcom process. Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Policy is policy. [[2]]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I suspect that needs some updating. I wouldn't presume to speak for Jimbo, but I have a very hard time imagining him having the time or inclination to thoroughly review a prolonged arbcom case with an eye towards overturning it... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I agree, as far as I know Jimbo nor the WMF has ever overturned an Arbcom case and all indications are it would never happen. IMO, we may as well take that out of the policy because its just taking up space. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) There's a process.[[3]]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC) No, WTF do you think your doing, Beeblebrox? On what authority do you to attempt to deny the editors party to the case at hand the right to make an appeal here, as provided for in policy. I take affront at your offensive remarks, even though I have never interacted with you on this website before. Do not impinge my rights because you think you have to be a cheerleader for Arbcom, or whatever your actually motivation is. I believe that Mr. Wales is the individual here that has the authority to decide whether or not the appeal(s) have merit. Once he makes that call, we move on. As I and others have stated, however, blogs and other public forums are available for addressing the kangaroo court proceedings just conducted by Wikipedia's very own Arbcom, under the auspices of an undergraduate wanna be attorney. Am I laughing??? You're damn right I'm laughing! But that is only because I've had a couple of whiskies to help ease my mind regarding the amount of time and effort I've poured into the issue at hand. Otherwise I'd be crying.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC) My only motivation was to point out the absurdity of trying to appeal here. It's not going to accomplish anything. If an arbcom decision is driving you to drink I would strongly suggest you take a prolonged wikibreak. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Well, OK, but you need to appreciate the amount of duress and stress this long, long process has exacted. I like to drink anyway, but prefer it to be under more pleasant circumstances. The point here, is that I am not someone that is going to stand for the type of nonsense to which I have just been subjected, so there will be a response in the public sphere, at Wikipediocracy or a blog I start myself about Wikipedia or maybe simply contributing comments to the blog Snowed has stated he is going to create in relation to this ludicrous case. I am a grown adult, highly educated and a professional, and I don't suffer fools that impinge on my activities lightly at this stage. Mayb Wikipedia should implement a policy that Arbcom members have to have a college degree?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Arbcom members need to have a college degree? That sounds like a particularly bad idea lacking any merit♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Actually, Beeblebrox, Jimmy Wales personally is the ONE entity that can constitutionally overrule an ArbCom decision, I do believe. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I do remember having a good loud grumble that Founder Super Authority wasn't removed from Wikipedias bylaws, or whatever the constitutional document is called, wherever it is located on-Wiki... Carrite (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC) So, how about it Jimbo? In the interest of clarifying this point so we don't have to have some massive policy RFC to remove one out-of-date sentence, could you please clarify your position regarding being the "ultimate court of appeals" for arbcom decisions and/or link to any previous statements you may have made regarding this matter? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Just to note that Jimbo indicated in his previous reply to Collect that he does still consider himself an avenue for appeals. I don't see any reason not to AGF that he will approach the appeal with an open mind. Formerip (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Jimbo is the Supreme Leader of Wikipedia, he has to approve ArbCom candidates, and he can intervene in ArbCom rulings. :). Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Party 4 To the preceding, I can only add this. The following review won't take a lot of time or effort, and strikes right to the heart of the matter. Please review the Findings of Fact regarding Goethean [4] and Xenophrenic. [5] I believe these were the two worst offenders involved in this matter. Indefinite topic bans were appropriate. Next, please compare those two FOFs with the Findings of Fact regarding Collect, [6] Arthur Rubin [7] and myself. [8] The evidence supporting topic bans in these latter three cases is pathetically weak by comparison. And that's before you check the diffs. When you check the diffs, it gets even worse. Much, much worse. An effort needs to be made by Wikipedia leadership to restore something approaching substantive due process in these matters. ArbCom is completely off its tracks. An attempt was made to dispose of this case with six-month topic bans for everyone without bothering with any FOFs. When a loud chorus of editors (including JClemens, a former ArbCom member) objected, ArbCom decided to achieve the same result by going through the motions. Rather than zero FOFs, we have solid FOFs against a few editors who have earned their topic bans, and pathetically flimsy FOFs for everyone else, who received exactly the same sanctions as the worst offenders. Yes, I realize that the central goal of these proceedings is to protect the Wikipedia community. But I suspect that if the results of this become widely known, and editors realize that simply by editing a contentious article in good faith they, too, can be swept up in a mass topic ban like this, there won't be much of a Wikipedia community left to protect. Something resembling fairness has to be applied here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

When an editor is incorrectly sanctioned by ArbCom, how is she supposed to know that the decision is appealable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It has always been so, and I assume it says so in the appropriate places. If not, that should be fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it should. Not being an admin, and not being familiar with the rules for such an appeal, I hope that such a person will check on fix it. Should I make a request to that effect somewhere, and if so where?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've looked around, and the only thing I can find is the following from the Wikipedia:Banning policy: "While any arbitration decision may be nominally appealed to Jimbo Wales, it is exceedingly unusual for him to intervene." This is very vague. No deadline is mentioned, and the chance of an appeal being heard seems remote at best. If this is the only check on the power of ArbCom, it seems to be merely "nominal", which means "in name only". I don't know how the policy could be more unhelpful about explaining this process. Since this appeal process is operated by you, Jimbo, could you please explain whether there is a deadline for appeal, and whether hearing the appeal is purely discretionary on your part? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you are needed here, an immense amount is at stake. If the highest and supposedly most careful "court" of Wikipedia treats people in a random harmful way not based on evidence, that says that Wikipedia is a random and vicious place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The mention of Jimbo as an appeal is, IMO, merely a procedural rule rather than a functional one. Having been here for years I have never seen an occassion where he has overturned a ruling and I just don't see it happening. Jimbo all but said so above and has said so in the past. Also to North8000, Arbcom is the highest but they haven't been careful in years. Now most of their decisions seem to smack of making it as painful as possible to all parties involved so an Arbcom decision is the last thing anyone wants. Its also essentially a kangaroo court when it comes to editor sanctions because they won't even take a case unless they feel the editor is guilty. So once the case is accepted the editor may as well just logout and go edit somewhere else because its the end anyway. This project seems more and more about process and policy than in what we should be here to do which is make an Encyclopedia. Its all about blogging on talk pages and filling our userpages with Userbox cruft. Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, you have four more userboxes than I have.  :-) Seriously, I agree with most of what you said, sadly. And the situation is worse than that, because an editor can bring a valid case to ArbCom and slip in lots of additional "defendants" who are not the main offenders, but rather are more like people with whom the "plaintiff" has disagreed about content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the rules and processes are more often used as tools FOR warfare & POV'ing articles, rather than as ways to avoid or fix such. But what happened in this case was even worse, it didn't even meet that low standard of basis. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For those that haven't noticed Arbcom has made policy determinations in several cases in the past that stretched the limits of their remit and they haev made policy decisions that were so strange and mysterious that they weren't used before that decision nor since and in fact several seemed targetted to specific individuals as justification to ban them. I have made no illusions about my displeasure for the Arbcom process and I have been very vocal about my opinion that the process needs a substantial overhaul. Among several others in the project I might add. But the committee and in many respoects Jimbo himself seem so far disconnected from the realities of the project its almost as though they aren't even members of the community. There above it, beyond it, over it; there the Wikimen in black. Kumioko (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko. While you are quite right in terms of precedent, an appeal here is technically appropriate under Wikipedia's organizational laws. I would look forward to Mr. Wales taking this role seriously, particularly at the current moment, since this edition of ArbCom really seems to have gone off the tracks... I am looking forward to the next round of elections, to be sure. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Join the ArbCom Reform Party. Count Iblis (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Two points. First, the smartass in me wants to say that he always thought the cliche was about the other shoe dropping, not falling. Second, I notice the statement in Jimbo's hatnote about how he would like to see a set of "lower courts" and a court of appeals above them. Honestly, that strikes me as a very good idea. Considering we are getting around time to elect arbs again, I was wondering if there has been any recent discussion about how such a multi-tiered dispute resolution process might work. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I had previous thought (and vocalized) support for arbcom because (unlike mob violence places like ANI) it was a more methodical process where evidence was gathered and analyzed, and the subsequent processes were logically built on that. Either I was niave/not familiar or Arbcom has declined, because I saw nothing resembling that process in this case. So theoretically, "lower courts" would be a better alternative to mob violence venues like ANI. So if Arbcom were fixed, such would be a good idea, but it isn't going to be the fix for Arbcom. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this matter, so I dunno what happened here, but I have seen that recently ArbCom has been at least saying that all they should do is resolve conduct disputes, which I think, by and large, they have probably been, overall, pretty good at. The problem seems to be that, in the power vacuum that exists around here, they have become the de facto final appeal point for all matters of importance, and I don't think even they necessarily like that. If there were other bodies, like lower courts, which could decide some of the less complicated matters or less involved ones, that might in and of itself make it easier for those in ArbCom, because they would probably be allowed to do what they were really created to do, and what I think they primarily want to do, dealing with conduct issues. So, maybe, in a way, if we "fixed" the existing problem that ArbCom has become effectively the first and last "court of appeals" by instituting lower courts for more obvious conduct issues and/or content issues (somehow), I think that probably would fix ArbCom to a degree too. But, admittedly, ensuring that the lower courts themselves work might not be any real walk in the park itself. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of fortunate that dispute resolution has been going on for millennia, and so we have quite a reservoir of history to learn from. And perhaps the centerpiece in Anglo-American dispute resolution is the jury. They do the fact-finding and the convicting, and the judges are only entitled to decide what the rules mean. If you just want to have lower courts and a higher court of appeals, but allow the judges to do all the fact-finding, all the convicting, and all the interpretation of rules, then you may have a workable system, but it won't be anything like our system that developed offline for thousands of years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Really if you think about it the multicourt system Jimbo mentions already exists. We have Dispute resolution, we have the Admin boards like ANI, we also have Arb Enforcement and others. So really we already have the mechanisms in place we just need to revamp the processes to work better and more efficiently. Right now too many of them work to protect their wikipals than to actually do the right thing or follow policy. There are also far too many admins who block first and ask questions later rather than reviewing the facts and then taking action. Frequently the wrong person in a dispute gets blocked because they were the last one to perform an action and the admin didn't bother to look into the whole case first before acting. So its the whole process from top to bottom that needs to be redone, but whats the likelihood of that happening? Zilch! Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to Anythingyouwant, I think it would be useful if we did have a jury system of some sort. The problem with that around here, of course, is not so much having a separate jury, but having separate competent prosecutors and defense attorneys to function independently of the jury. We do more or less have that as is, although in many or most cases the parties involved play those roles, not always competently. And, honestly, I have serious reservations about whether anyone would actively seek out regularly taking on a role of some sort of official or unofficial "prosecutor" in such jury proceedings. It probably could work if it could get started, but I can't imagine it ever getting started. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

John Carter, I think we do have lots of prosecutors already, in the form of people who bring complaints to ArbCom. And we ask editors to defend themselves at ArbCom, which isn't so bad if ArbCom is willing to respect the rights of those accused editors. And we also have judges ("arbitrators"). What we don't have is any jury selected randomly from the pool of editors, and all that power that would be wielded by jurors is now instead tossed in the lap of ArbCom. The U.S. has a very robust jury system, not just in criminal cases but also in civil cases (there aren't any prosecutors in the latter unless one considers the plaintiffs as prosecutors-of-a-sort).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Anythingyouwant. I think I see your point now. Speaking as someone who, once, admittedly strangely, tried to work as a defense advocate at ArbCom (for someone later banned anyway) for someone who didn't wish to defend themselves, for whatever reason I forget now. I guess the question to my eyes is that, more or less, it looks like the current ArbCom setup has, sort of, the lead arbitrators in a case filling the "judge" role in a sense, and then the remainder serving as a jury. Newyorkbrad, of honestly extremely well-earned reputation, would probably be better able to discuss that than me. I guess I could see a way in which, maybe?, we could perhaps create yet another class of editors by rights, possibly/probably including most admins, at least those who wouldn't be disqualified for some form of potential bias, who might be able to "fill out" a jury on a per case basis. and in a sense I could see some benefit to doing such. However, there might be a very real downside if these individuals don't get full access to the relevant information in the ArbCom mailing list. The downside is, unfortunately, for jurors who might decide to leave the project later, carrying some sort of grudge, they might well go elsewhere and release potentially sensitive information that they got from the mailing list or from the case on some other site, to no real benefit and possibly to the serious damage of the project here. Of course, old arbs could do the same thing, but their smaller number and more thorough review kind of makes that less probable. Vetting potential jurors might be the biggest concern there. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi John Carter. We could get rid of juries in the United States, and just have some full-time government employees do that job instead, but I think something terribly important would be lost, namely a check on the government. I don't see why ordinary editors should not be judged by their peers, but I guess if it were limited to admins (randomly selected) that would still be better than the present set-up which concentrates power very narrowly in the hands of ArbCom. Do most bans by ArbCom involve information that comes in privately on the ArbCom mailing list? I am doubtful about that; such cases would require special treatment, but I don't think that tail should wag the dog (if such confidential info is provided by a "defendant" then it's no problem at all because the "defendant" could thereby waive his right to a jury of ordinary editors).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never been on ArbCom, so I honestly don't know. And I wasn't thinking necessarily just admins, but some sort of class which indicates some degree of seniority, maybe like autoreviewer or something. We wouldn't I think want too many newer editors without much of a grasp of policy or guidelines on a jury. But, if we did choose some comparatively infrequent editors without much of a demonstrated commitment to the project, we could well have them drop out of a case they were assigned to if they didn't like it or something similar, which wouldn't be particularly useful. And, unfortunately, again, the question of vetting the candidates might come up. I know a number of people accuse me of some sort of pro-Christian bias, sometimes fairly frequently, which I don't agree with, but that might be an issue if I, who am an admin, might be selected for a jury about something related to the WP:TRUTH of Christianity, or Islam, or, hell, Thelema. Would you, Anythingyouwant, or anyone else, really want to trust the outcome of a case to at least in part a number of individuals whom, factually, we really can't vet in any particularly useful way, except by the extremely limited information we can get from their user pages and edit history? I'm not really sure I would. Also, yeah, I think quite a few of us really committed editors might be, in a way, well, of other-than-usual mental or neurological typicality, whether they declare it or not. I make a bit of a joke comparing myself to Gregory House on my page, and it is a joke, but in other cases it might not be, or it might not even be declared. In real juries the attorneys can check for that sort of thing, but we really can't here.

Like I said, I could see some use to something like this, but I really would want to have some sort of idea what procedures might be available to ensure that the people selected don't wind up being in some cases among the worst possible people to be selected for such a role. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I could see screening out editors having less than a thousand article edits, from a jury, to ensure a level of familiarity and commitment. And asking that they promise to abide by applicable rules.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is actually a lot more possible within the current ArbCom. Cases don't need to be conducted by 10 or more Arbs, 3 is enough. With 3 Arbs who collaborate well in reading through all the evidence, you will actually get far better rulings. This has the additional advantage that for any given case, most Arbs will not have been involved in there, making it possible to have an appeal conducted by previously uninvolved Arbs. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they already divvy up their workload. The point is, if an ordinary editor is editing in a way that he should know very well is against the rules, then other ordinary editors know very well how to recognize and sanction that kind of thing. We don't need a triumvirate to lord over the project, in my opinion. It creates a great danger of systematic bias, lack of care, power trips, elitism, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the ban policy (to describe how things work, not how they should work).[9]Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd support the concept, although I'd like to discuss the counts. I have real-world experience with a similar issue - not DR, but close enough. I served on a peer review committee for years, then took over as chair. We had 8-10 members on the committee, and every member reviewed every submission, then supplied a vote. This created a critical path problem, with the length of the process dependent on the last member (We weren't totally stupid, sometimes a member would abstain, but that was viewed as a special circumstance, rather than a usual part of the process). It wasn't that some members were habitually slow, it was that members had areas of interest and expertise, and when reviewing papers outside of their main interest, it was human nature to take longer. It was taking months to get a paper to the point of acceptance or rejection. When I became chair we both doubled the size of the committee, and halved the number of reviewers per paper. When a new paper came in, committee members could sign on, and the first five to sign on, probably those most interested in the subject matter, completed their review. The nominal workload per committee member was a quarter of what it was before although we expected a more complete review given the smaller numbers, and the gross volume was increasing, so the net workload was little changed. However, the process sped up dramatically, as I was no longer hounding the 8th or ninth committee member, who was putting of reading the paper because it bored them to tears. That was probably 20 years ago, but last I checked, they were still largely following the process I put in place.

I see that working well here. While some cases are inherently more interesting than others, surely there will be cases that some committee members dread reviewing. When one is spending volunteer time do the review, and there is a lot of material to review, this naturally drag things out. Why not let five or so memebrs sign on to a case, then they can work on this case and skip a different one in progress. I wouldn't fully compartmentalize, any arb should feel free to check with any other arb to run something by them, even if they aren't on the case, but the general approach would mean, if the committee size was unchanged, that each signs up for roughly half the cases. They would spend more time per case, but probably not double, so it might be a net decrease in work load.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents. IMO, the fact that no one takes a look at global NPOV is a problem. As is the fact that cross-article comparisons generally carry no weight.William Jockusch (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wales apparently has no authority to overturn ArbCom findings

The Wikipedia:Banning policy as of today no longer describes the process of appealing a ban to Jimbo Wales. I tried to correct an inaccurate description (which called the appeals "nominal"), but instead the whole thing has now been removed (I objected at the policy talk page but so far without reply). In place of the description is now a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy which merely says: "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions." So, only the ArbCom remedies may be appealed, and not the findings of fact or interpretations of policy. This one bare sentence at the arbitration policy page also provides no deadline, and no link, and Wikipedia could scarcely do a better job of preventing people from learning about and defending their appeal rights. But what else is new?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest. Jimbo can vacate some or all of the remedies. I suggest that he should vacate several of these remedies. I suggest that he also has the authority to send the case back to ArbCom — with a recommendation that ArbCom rewrite or vacate the FOFs related to those editors for whom remedies were vacated. Then ArbCom can recommend or impose new remedies based on the rewritten FOFs, and Jimbo can review all that, and approve or reject it. That is probably the most reasonable resolution of this matter. My position on three of the remedies that should be vacated is already very clear, but the Malke and North8000 remedies should also be reviewed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest and to the contrary of what some may beleive, he hasn't for a very long time. Back in the early days of the project when he was heavily involved yes, he had that ability; but over the last few years his ability to overturn those rulings has been eroded by his own vocal desire to back away from the projects affairs. Now it would be virtually impossible for him to overturn an Arbcom ruling without receiving heavy backlash from the community and possibly a revolt of the Arbcom themselves. No, he no longer has the authority, he gave it up voluntarily whether we like that or not. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As Jimbo Wales said above, "There is no other realistic check on the power of ArbCom." If there really is no check, that would be very unfortunate. I don't see why there is not more support for a jury-like system. Instead we've got something between France in 1793, Spain in 1500, and England in 1600.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we have a website in 2013. We're not a nation-state, we're a volunteer project. And the goal of this project is to build a serious, respectable encyclopedia, not to create the world's first fully functional online judicial system. As far as juries... I'm not a lawyer, but jury selection (at least in the U.S.) isn't simply a matter of picking random people. Prospective jurors are subject to detailed, highly intrusive questioning before they're empaneled. If we seek to translate that process to Wikipedia, then how do we replicate that crucial part of the jury-selection process? MastCell ^Talk 01:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I never suggested that the present-day American jury system could or should be replicated within Wikipedia. Did I ever suggest peremptory challenges? The jury system used to be much simpler in this country, and it still is in some other countries. The fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project rather than a nation-state has not stopped it from having elections, committees, policies, guidelines, and lots of other features of democratic government. In fact, Wikipedia is a corporation, and like all corporations it must choose the form of governance most suited to its needs. It's not every corporation that routinely slimes and smears and blacklists its employees or its volunteer members, and such ought to be done with great care, just as if we were all using our real names here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's a real lack of perspective about this case. It's not the worst decision ArbCom has ever made. Realistically, it's not even in the top five worst.

  In general terms, the Tea Party case is very similar to the climate-change case. In both, a politically controversial topic had become mired in tendentious and unproductive editing. In both cases, ArbCom cast a broad net in sanctioning active editors—some of whom were clearly unfit to edit here in any capacity, and some of whom were good editors who simply got a bit too caught up in the brawl. We've lost more good editors because of the climate-change case than the Tea Party case (particularly as, despite the usual theatrics, no one shows any intention of actually leaving because of the latter). If Jimbo intervenes here, then I'd expect that a substantial number of ArbCom cases are going to be appealed with a (reasonable) expectation that Jimbo should intervene.

  It's also worth remembering that the Tea Party article was a disaster zone of Superfund proportions. These pages were host to all sorts of editorial misconduct, from edit-warring to stonewalling to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to total disregard for WP:BLP to total disregard for proper sourcing criteria. ArbCom sanctioned a core of editors who clearly needed to be extracted from the situation, and then a fringe of editors who were not the root of the problem but who exacerbated the unproductive aspects of the situation. One could argue about how widely the net was cast, and whether those editors on the "fringes" should have been let off with a warning, but that's a question of ArbCom's discretion, not grounds for overturning the case with a Jimbo ex machina. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Very obviously, there are other options besides leaving everything to ArbCom's discretion versus overturning the entire case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be less concerned with how wide the net is thrown. Little crabs are still crabs. I think the problem in this case is that Arbcom seems to think it can decide on sanctions in private (either through backdoor communication or individual judgement) and put any old tickbox crap on the decision page. It ought to be accountable and leave an audit trail. If I want to know why a particular editor was sanctioned, it ought to be easy for me to find clear information. But in this case, it's impossible. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

VikiHərəkat in Azerbaijan

Jimbo, do you personally endorse the upcoming efforts of VikiHərəkat? Will the Wikimedia Foundation support or oppose this program, do you think? - 2001:558:1400:10:6DA9:A36E:581C:DA12 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about it. I know no one involved. There is no chapter in the Azeri language region. I have never heard of "VikiHərəkat". I do not know its organizing principles, foundational rules, organizational structure, funding, leadership, membership, or anything else about it. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of me to voice an opinion about it. If you take a genuine interest in the issue, I recommend that you find people who speak English and Azeri and invite them to come here to discuss it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone should contact them and point out that using the Wikipedia name and Logo without permission is a breach of copyright... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are they though? That's a news report - it's perfectly fine for a news report to use our name and logo. And to be clear, I think you meant to say "trademark violation".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, right you are - trademark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For info: Viki Hərəkat; the English language page of its parent organistation. Formerip (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, I am the head of the project's parent organization - AGTA. VikiHerekat has in no way used Wikipedia logo or stylized name in any way. Well before the launch of the project (in April) we started correspondence with Wikimedia Information Team and later Trademark team to avoid any trademark violation. We are building our trademark-related activities on guidelines from Trademark team. That is, we are planning to only use unchanged screenshot of Wikipedia content in the manuals that we are preparing on how to use wikipedia. We have nowhere associated this project with Wikimedia either. Mr Wales, I understand that you might be unaware, but the Foundation I believe is aware, as I noted we started correspondence back in April. At least trademark section knows quite a lot about our project. Unfortunately, Trademark section has not replied to my August 2 email where I gave the details of the project, including all components of it. I would be happy to answer any questions regarding the project. Again, we'll in no way violate Wikipedia principles, including trademarks. Jabism1 (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Ismayil Jabrayilov

Hi Ismayil. I think some users of English Wikipedia are nervous or even suspicious about the idea of government money supporting Wikipedia content. This may be a well-founded suspicion or it may be based on misunderstanding. I do not know.

Perhaps it would help if you could say a bit about whether there are limits to what sort of content AGTA can support. I'm aware, for example, that there was controversy to do with the venue for the 2011 Eurovision. Could you imagine it causing any issues for your organisation if a volunteer wanted to add content about that? Or could they just do so freely, with the content being determined by ordinary processes of consensus etc? Or could content end up being shaped by other considerations? Are there any other topics where it might be tricky. Formerip (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain one small instance. AGTA will in no way interfere with the content contributed by the users. It is up to local admins to decide what content needs to be kept or removed. Our intention is just to help those, who want to be involved in Wikipedia, and improve their skills in doing so. We'll encourage the youth potential of the country to spend their leisure time for such a useful cause. We won't pay somebody to contribute to Wikipedia or hire notebooks or employees to do so. We'll bring them together in trainings, train them and encourage them to continue their activities in wikipedia. Again, we don't shape contents, we explain them how the content is made, its principles, technical issues etc. Thank you for your interest. Jabism1 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a clear answer. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On my Block Appeal, which You Agreed to Hear

Hi Jimbo, you told me here ten days ago "To the banned user - I will look into this early next week. It may be helpful to email me since discussion on-wiki is likely to be problematic for you." I emailed you three times (the wikia address listed at your page) got only radio silence. I'll get to my appeal straight away, but let me remind you to the other person that was frustratedly trying to email you on the child protection matter, which is no doubt more important than me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_141#My_email). I think in his case you've mistakenly criticized him for not being specific enough, but you failed to see that the policy prohibits stating specifics publicly. It says hush hush and email ArbCom. While I'm at it, I think you're wrong that Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)'s ban has nothing to do with his child protection efforts. It's right there in the case. You say he's a serial personal attacker and child protection is the smoke screen, I say vice-versa.

As for me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_140#Appeal_-_was_formerly_titled_.22Can_an_Arbitrator.27s_Block_be_Overturned.22) I'm not "banned" as I understand it, I am permanently blocked by an arb, Timotheus Canens who alleged sockpuppetry, in his capacity as an admin. There is a second arb, Silktork, that declined my appeal on his suspicion that I am a mysterious previously-ArbCom-sanctioned editor whom he'll not identify, which means of course it's literally impossible for me to refute. I was unblocked on detailed and explained research by bureaucrat Nihonjoe, but that was kidnapped by the self-selected blocklovers at WP:AN/ANI, who subjected me to some sort of popularity contest, which I lost (though not by consensus).

The block persists therefore, as far as I can tell, on the authority of Timotheus Canens. It was a shock block, prior to it I had never been so much as warned. My record was sparkly clean. He provided neither warning nor discussion nor explanation of his block for more than a year. WP:ADMIN says the admin must communicate. Finally he pointed to my words in my very first edit: "I had a previous Wikipedia account but I'm switching to this because of privacy considerations," meant to him, "sock." Since sockpuppets are known for deception, it's a little strange to be so indicted on the basis of my honesty. In closing, you have publicly signaled your willingness to consider my appeal. Can we get on with it, or have you changed your mind? This is Folton Fosmic (replace "F" and "F" with "C" and "C").

PS: All, any of my edits, regardless of content, is in imminent peril of revert, delete, and erase ("oversight"). Jimbo agreed to this conversation. If the WP:AN/ANI crowd stomps on this, consider reverting with a "wait, let's hear him out."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.182.47 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Colton had only maybe 100 edits before he was blocked. none looked particularly bad. perhaps more or less edits such as any newish user would make. his suspected sock-puppets category consists solely of IP's as well... no confirmed socks, no other SPI cases involving users.... perhaps allow the standard offer? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic's appeal was discussed fairly recently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Unblocking of Colton Cosmic. Favonian (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

read it. as I understand it, the re-blocking was due to procedural reasons more than anything. he is also still entitled to an appeal with jimbo. I supposed jimbo will have to consult with the original blocking admin, as there may be non-public evidence. as far as public evidence goes, I see none for the original block. but still, it's up to jimbo to decide everything here. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom, not ANI, seemed to have made the decision to uphold the original block. Their decision was explained in part in this edit, where User:SilkTork said inter alia, "I approached the admins involved in his block and established that there was reason to believe this was a particular returning banned user. In discussion with Colton Cosmic he agreed that he was a returning user, but declined to reveal his previous account(s). He was informed that without that information ArbCom would not be able to overturn his block. He accepted that decision. He preferred not to be able to edit Wikipedia than to reveal his previous account". If this has changed, presumably Colton Cosmic needs to let Jimbo (or arbcom?) know about that. This is the voice of the Mysterons, currently posting as --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased that you two cared enough to examine my case, thanks. Aunva6, I think the "standard offer" puts me in a position where I accept a six months block and come back with an humble apology for socking and a pledge never to do so again, and hope some administrator takes mercy on me. The problem is I didn't sock, so I would have to lie. I'm not without fault, I was uncivil a couple times, but I didn't sock. You call it "non-public," but what you're really saying is that there may be "secret" evidence against me. It's Silktork that said that, but when I write back "no, I'm not Mr. X, I was never sanctioned, tell me who you're referring to and I'll try to prove I'm not him" he goes silent. I'm not Mr. X. Is secret evidence, thus irrefutable by the blockee, wikijustice? Silk finds it "reasonable." Demiurge1000, yeah you're going back as well to Silktork's nebulous Mr. X. I'm not #$%^*ing Mr. X. I feel like Saddam Hussein trying to prove I don't have WMDs. It's all just like I said in my very first edit[10]. I switched to this account from my former one with sparkly clean block record because of privacy concerns. What Silktork says, that you quoted above, I'm not saying he's dishonest about it, but that is not how I perceived it. If you look at my talkpage he corrected his wording twice already, but it still needs work because I didn't "agree with him" that I was a "returning user," he *agreed with me* because I said so long before in my first edit (see link above). There was never any deal offered that if I revealed my previous account, and it was clean, that I'd be unblocked. It was more "I'm not even going to consider your appeal until you tell me your previous account." But like I said I switched because of privacy concerns. Plus, I didn't think that was *ArbCom's* position like you say, I naively thought the others were reading and would consider me on the totality of my case. But it was just Silktork signing his decision in my blocklog "ArbCom." To further establish my position here on a logical basis, my revealing of my previous account would not disprove I'm Mr. X (how would it?!) it just gives the snoopy sniffers something else to plug into checkabuser.

To Jimbo and everyone else, you've heard enough of the sock detective stuff above, so what are my accomplishments as an editor and what would I do if unblocked? I did I say though can't prove a substantial amount of content work in my previous account, there are four or five articles I authored that are the top Google result and another six or seven where I drastically improved and overhauled what was already there and those are the top Google results, and I can go look at them now and yeah those are jointly-written but a lot of my contribution there is enduring. In my current account (I'd type the name but Kww is block-filtering it for raw IPs, see my sig below) I had little time but at least authored Rain City Superhero Movement which is the number one Google result and linked directly by Slate and other mainstream news sources. I initiated community processes like WP:3DO and researched obscure policy for good faith talkpage discussion on articles I worked on. You can see this stuff in my edit history. After that yeah I got trapped in WP:AN/ANI/and ArbCom's bickering and sickening orbit, but I didn't have any choice about that. You can't blame me for not contributing enough solid content work while the administrative culture is wiping out my ability to edit at all. Once upon a time I edited a range of my interests, and I always will try to, but if unblocked I intend to edit policy because I see there's a critical need there to debloat it and improve it. This is Koulton Kousmic (replace "Kou" and "Kou" with "Co" and "Co"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.1.247 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 September 2013‎

the thing with policy is that you need to establish consensus that is more... developed... thatn consensus in articlespace usually is. i.e. an RfC needs to be done before major changes.... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This was also mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Unblock request of User:Colton Cosmic, but of course, in classical Wikipediot fashion, the community wrote it off as some WP:POINT violation by myself, knowing full well this will keep coming back again and again and again and again and again.

It's very simple, folks. In order to shut this person up, the community must be willing and able to unblock him. In fact, that pertains to quite a few other unfortunate users who have blocked or banned as well. Some people need to wake up and realize that blocks and bans are absolutely meaningless, and that you all need to either deal with or put up the issues raised at hand. --MuZemike 05:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mediation Committee - as discussed, your opinion requested.

Hi Jimmy,

I appreciate the time you've taken in the past to talk with me about my views of the Mediation Committee, both in the past via email when I was a WMF Community Fellow, and more recently at Wikimania. In Hong Kong, you suggested I start a discussion on your talk page, and in the meantime I have done a bit more digging to get my facts in order. I am aware that many watch this talk page, so I'll give a bit of background to myself and my comments that I will provide here. I apologise in advance for the length.

I've been on the English Wikipedia, on and off, for a bit over five years. Most of that time I have dedicated to resolving content disputes as well as working with other editors to try and improve the dispute resolution process overall. In July 2011 I created the dispute resolution noticeboard, which has two main ideas behind it; make dispute resolution overall less complicated both for parties and for potential volunteers (by simplifying the process), and create a many-to-many relationship between these parties and volunteers, to reduce the potential burnout that can be created by other processes like the Mediation Committee and ArbCom. This has had some success, but like all processes needs more work, which is ongoing.

Around 6 months later, we noticed a drop in cases filed at the Mediation Cabal (an informal process, very similar to the Mediation Committee's process) and after some analysis, figured that as the new DRN process performed largely the same role as MedCab, that it'd be best to mark MedCab as historical, and that was done. That largely leaves us at the present day with some very informal processes, DRN and the Mediation Committee. I feel the problem is that the Mediation Committee is not performing it's role, and have started questioning it's value. Let me explain in a bit more detail.

When I was doing research on dispute resolution last year, I analysed success rates of various processes, and also asked the community their opinions on how effective they felt certain processes were. While it didn't fare too badly (24% rated formal mediation as "Good" or better - page 15), I dug deeper. Over the last 2 years (April 2011-2013) there have been 99 case requests. 86 were rejected for one reason or another (not all parties agreed to mediation, request not suited to mediation, malformed and so on). 13 cases were accepted, of these, 8 were closed as outright unsuccessful (failed), 3 were closed as mediation no longer required, and two were closed as successful. These two cases were open for 19 months and 5 months respectively, which while successful is a bit of a concern. So, overall, we have 99 requests, 13% were accepted and 2% were resolved successfully. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the members of the committee, and I get along with most of them very well, but I feel that the process itself is broken and question whether going forward it is a workable process that we can continue to use.

I have raised my concerns with both individual members of the committee in the past, as well as with the chair. Last year, myself and others raised concerns about the Mediation Committee's current structure, among other things (Mediation Committee policy is governed by the Mediation Committee, members are self-appointed by other members, and so on). Essentially, I feel that the community has no say in general on the process (unlike ArbCom, where members are directly elected by the community). Some have commented that if the process is not working well, then it's not a big issue, as it's doing no harm. I feel that we should try and be progressive in our approach to resolving disputes on Wikipedia, and recognise that while MedCom has served a useful purpose in the past, given its current state it is in and that efforts made last year to revamp MedCom had little success, that we should consider the value in its continued existence.

I come to you as you are the original creator of MedCom. It was suggested to me that as MedCom is a process that you created, and due to its longevity, that I'd have little luck in getting it closed. The lack of an alternative process has also been noted. I don't just come with problems, but I do have a potential solution. A content dispute would go through a regular DR process (like DRN) to try and resolve it through normal discussion and compromise. Failing that, at present, it would just go to MedCom, where much of the same would take place. Instead, I would propose a moderated discussion be held, where the question/dispute at hand is clearly defined, then opened up for wider discussion to the community - somewhat similar to the Jerusalem and Abortion article titles discussion. I think this could be effective, and am happy to take the lead on creating this process.

I apologise for the length of this post - I have quite a lot of thoughts about this and hope you will take some time to reflect, and consider the points I have made. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should hold elections for medcom, and run it as you suggest. seems like a good idea. let medcom deal with content disputes, and let arbcom deal with conduct issues. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't quite my point though. It was that overall, the process as it stands right now is not working. I'd be open to binning the whole thing and starting it again from the ground up, but I don't think changing the membership model to direct election by the community will solve all our problems. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have participated in the Jerusalem RfC. I think that sort of binding RfCs should only be used as a last resort when all other DR processes fail. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Steven neglects to refer to the fact formal mediation is not working simply because it is not being used. Nobody is referring disputes to RFM. All disputes start at WP:DRN, and Steve temporarily and presently co-ordinates that noticeboard, so why has he not simply made a greater effort to have disputes referred up the chain when so required? The simplest solution is the best. In the meantime, and until a greater effort to use RFM fails, this vague and aimless proposal seems like a solution in pursuit of a problem. AGK [•] 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The fundamental problem with MedCom (iirc) is that it cannot impose binding solutions. Thus, it is a huge waste of time, unless both people agree beforehand to follow the MedCom's solution. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think the case against Medcom as an effective DR route is quite compelling. But I also think there are major hurdles to 3-closer RfCs as a replacement. It isn't a properly formalised process and, used more widely, it would be pretty vulnerable to abuse without machinery being built around it (it seems acceptable at the moment, for example, for closers to appoint themselves and each other). The Jerusalem RfC, IMO, showed the problems that can arise if there is not a handed-down locus of dispute for the mediation. It means that the participants end up at cross-purposes as to why they are there. Without Arbcom as a referrer, where does the locus of dispute come from? Most importantly, nailing down WP content is a fairly drastic step which we take only rarely and in cases where it seems like the only answer. Making it standard operating procedure wherever people disagree would be a very big change to the way Wikipedia works and would require a lot of prior thought.
  • BTW. Steven, I don't think you should "take a lead" on this. You're welcome to work on a proposal, but I don't think the psychology of leadership is a healthy thing on WP. Formerip (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
    • @AGK: As I said above, I'm quite fond of most of the members of the Mediation Committee, and consider some of them (yourself included) friends. Please don't take my comments here or elsewhere as an attack on the committee as a whole, for this is not how I feel. This is not a "death to MedCom" thread, but I do think that the process of formal mediation in its present form has become somewhat outdated and that we should have a serious discussion about it's future. Now, I did have a discussion with MedCom a month or two back about the idea of DRN referring cases to MedCom, and they were welcoming to this idea. I spoke to several people at Wikimania and after some reflection and analysis I think that sending more cases to MedCom may not resolve its problems. If we look at cases sent to MedCom this year, 12 were filed in total. 10 were rejected, and 2 were accepted. Both of those accepted cases were unsuccessful, for one reason or another. Looking at this (though I will in further depth later today) it may seem that just sending more cases to MedCom won't necessarily be of benefit.
    • @FormerIP, I'll comment in greater depth shortly, but my proposal will not just be a straight adoption of the current 3-closer RFC format. I'd agree that just adopting that model won't work. When I said "take the lead" I meant it as "actively work on a solution". At work we call it "taking ownership" - I didn't mean to imply that I will make myself the boss of this or something. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I think this idea could work if the policy is changed and Medcom has some support and the ability to make binding resolutions. Otherwise, its just a waste of time. For example, since the Arbcom is the only ones that can desysop an admin for cause, there is no point in Medcom taking a case against admins because they couldn't do anything with it anyway. Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
        • @KumiokoCleanStart: Since MedCom is for content only, I'm not sure they'd do anything with it even if they could ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Good point but the reason I mention that is because Content disputes can and frequently do contain issues of policy violations including those from Admins. In some cases the Medcom folks can mediate but frankly more often than not any mediation either fails or falls apart in short order. If the Medcom had the ability of placing topic bans or other preventitive measures then it would be much more useful. Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, Medcom really isn't working. For whatever reason, It now has become a redundant form of DR/N and now hardly ever used at all. It seems to be less structured than DR/N and many editors are intimidated by the suggestion of a referral to formal mediation (that still appears to be non binding) many editors even push past MedCom to go directly to Arbcom as there is no formal structure to DR. I agree with Steven Zhang about using moderated discussions but I would want this to be listed on the RFC page in some manner. I see it similar to an RFC/U but this would be RFC/M. However, I don't know if that alone is enough. I really don't. Could we not strengthen MedCom to make its positions elected and give them the power to sanction in the same manner as ArbCo (as per another suggestion above). My personal experience with MedCom was incomplete but I regularly refer cases to MedCom and mention it as a an option. But Dispute resolution on Wikipedia needs to be looked at and something really does need to be proposed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just one personal opinion, obviously, but I think a lot of the questions regarding mediation of content can't really be necessarily resolved by any group without clearer guidelines and policies regarding content, and, honestly, in a lot of cases, a way to maybe make it easier for people involved in mediation to find what other reference-type sources say on a lot of topics. In short, "infrastructure" for content. Some of the free database subscriptions and similar efforts might help a lot in these regards, but even there they won't include a lot of the more recent works which might not be included yet. And, yeah, for a lot of topics, like Islamophobia, racism, and whatever, even there the existing reference sources might not be as good as we might like. For other topics, like Justin Bieber albums, I doubt if the topic is old enough to be covered at all. I could maybe see, maybe, if necessarily, the foundation maybe paying a few databanks for a subscription which would allow the subscription manager to e-mail various sources to those involved in disputes, including mediators, if that might be useful to help resolve this. But, like I said, I'm not sure how useful it would be in a lot of cases, even though I also think, basically, according to policies and guidelines as they exist today, something of that type might be about the only way to really be able to make such content mediation effective.

For content mediation to really work, it has to succeed in two areas. One, the easier one, is about making content conform to policies and guidelines in the broad sense. That part isn't easy, but it is probably the easier of the two situations that will be faced. The hard part is when it has to deal with the matters of things like weight, reliability of sources, and the like. That will be much harder. Those people involved in mediation of abstruse topics will have to believe that the mediators are as qualified on the subject as they are, and the only way I can see that happening is to give the mediators access to evidence hopefully at least equal to that the involved editors, many of whom will consider themselves to be some variety of experts on the topic, already have, to make them apparently roughly as informed on the topic as those already involved. Anyway, just an opinion. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a member of MedCom, but I'm also very active at DRN (and 3O, for that matter). The fact of the matter is that most content disputes pass through DRN these days and by the time they're done there they either (a) have received no attention from a volunteer at all, which means that they cannot go on to MedCom for lack of prior DR or (b) have been debated there until going on to MedCom would be just a do-over and few people are interested in that. The most important difference between DRN and MedCom, however, is that anyone can volunteer at DRN and it's not unheard-of for a dispute to draw a volunteer who has little or no experience at WP or who has little or no experience in DR at WP or both; at MedCom the membership process at least attempts to insure that members are experienced in both DR and WP in general. Though MedCom is not receiving many cases these day due to what happens at DRN, I would be loath to see it go away if for no other reason than the pool of "certified" experienced DR folks it provides even if they're not being used in the MedCom forum per se. One thing which could be done is for MedCom to drop its prior-DR requirement, but there are considerable pros and cons to that idea. About content arbitration: (If at the end of the day, someone other than the community has the right to decide content questions, that's arbitration even if the decision is only binding on the participants in that particular dispute.) That's a perennial suggestion which never succeeds, probably because it flies in the face of the Wiki model. I support such a venue, but I believe that it must be designed to only work in the most difficult cases, must only be binding on the parties in dispute, and must make as much provision for community input as possible (as I propose more fully in my old draft of such a system). If someone wants to take another flyer at such a system, I'll probably !vote to support it, depending on the details, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to be adopted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Save WP from stupidity

This could expose WP to a lot of publicity: The Pixar Theory, if it comes out we have an article on such a stupid topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Among our 4.3 million articles are many about topics that can be considered "stupid". A topic can be both stupid and notable. "It's stupid" is not a generally accepted argument in favor of deleting an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is aldo an active AFD running so I don't see why we need help here.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem is many said Keep per wp:GNG: The notability guidelines, at wp:GNG, are obviously too hollow, which has led to multi-week confusion where several users think "The Pixar Theory" as extremely notable, independently, without considering wp:NOTNEWS, due to mention in several sources on a few days. There needs to be a better nutshell, condensed rule which helps users to see when a topic is not *independently* notable, or might be a one-off fan fiction covered by the newspapers on a slow news day. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The pro-GNG position for keeping the content isn't wrong. GNG tells us it is possible to cover the topic, and we should. The problem is something different: making a special article for one particular opinion about the interpretation of the films is a "POV fork" that unnecessarily showcases that one point of view and separates it from the others. As a rule, many items of similar content, each passing GNG, can and should be lumped together into an article when there is space to fit them all, so that readers can more readily learn the topic as a whole. But I don't see Wikipedia being humiliated because we cover it, even if the article is kept; nor should we lose the information - just organize differently. Wnt (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DGG can probably explain to you better how easy it is to abuse GNG to keep inane stuff emanating from the silly season just because some crappy blog or failing newspaper wrote about it. The better test is to ask if any serious encyclopedia, even a specialized one, would have such an entry. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTPAPER - Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. There's nothing wrong with creating a compilation of all silly season entries; think of that as a (sub)encyclopedia specialized on slow news, as long as they're not routinary. (Also, there's no need why WP has to be a serious encyclopedia *only* - non-serious topics are also part of all human knowledge, as people may want to learn about them). Diego (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a fairly hardcore deletionist, but if the sourcing supports an article, there's really nothing wrong with the topic. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon may seem a bit silly as well, but it is widely-covered and discussed. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Tarc on this one. I have no strong opinion about this particular article, but if there's enough coverage of the question, then there's no reason for it not to have an article. But I'm also inclined to be persuaded by Wnt that this is likely something that should simply be a short paragraph in the Pixar entry.
• Here's the thing - I heard this idea, that all the Pixar movies are in the same universe, at a party or from a friend or something. It's a notion that is circulating and which is, apparently, false. So there is public value in debunking the myth. Yes, it isn't as "serious" a topic as many others, but it seems relatively harmless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• It was implied above I would certainly reject the article. As I have indeed said before, we cover only topics that someone would reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia. But there is a level of importance for inane topics where we do have to cover it, because people look here for even the absurdities of the world--just as Tarc and Jimmy said. We are certainly not an exclusively "serious" or academic encyclopedia in the 19th century sense, but a contemporary internet encyclopedia--our world is different from theirs. I do not consider myself qualified to judge in this area, and it's the sort of judgment where we have to go by consensus at the individual case, because there's no way of writing a firm rule. User:MichaelQSchmidt has made some comments at the AfD about how to cover it by merging, and for Hollywood topics or anything related, I generally follow his advice. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Having myself worked with both Disney and Pixar animators, I know how their animators are encouraged/expected to remain true to an internal consistency across all the company's animated projects, and how certain concepts and themes intentionally connect their various projects... many time as tongue-in-cheek in-jokes. Disney has been doing this for years as a marketing tool... the more subliminal, the better. However, I also understand that any personal knowledge of the truth or not of the Negroni "hypothesis" is not a valid source, and can only act to encourage searches for clues published in other media. We might hope that if the media continues to bounce the Negroni concept around, we may well find a "big reveal" eventually made public. Wikipedia can, at the very least, acknowledge the "thesis topic" has received coverage. Even if not in its own article, writing of it within one of the many Pixar articles as a "published opinion receiving wider inspection" would seem sensible. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• To the above. I'm eagerly waiting for the Wikipeida article on Monroe Isadore (or at least the death thereof), seeing that Wikipedia is a newspaper aggregation after all. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• If we have an article like this, what's next? An article on the theory that the album Dark Side of the Moon is in synch with the Wizard of Oz? Or an article called Paul is dead? What would people think about Wikipedia then? Oh, wait... (Seriously, I "voted" to keep The Pixar Universe and merge The Pixar Theory into it. You can only have so much fun...) Neutron (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

FonGenie, et al

Jimbo, did you know that FonGenie is an online Software as a Service (SaaS) company enabling retail and small business to turn telephone calls from customers into sales? According to Wikipedia, it is loaded with easy-to-implement features from the Web, FonGenie allows business owners to create and monitor on-the-fly interactive daily specials and promotions for customers to hear. That's not spam, either. That's a genuine Wikipedia article, brought to life by the well-rounded editor, User:Nizmoamg. Then again, that editor is hardly different from User:Subratadhara, except maybe not as passionate about FonGenie as Subrata is about A2Zapps, which is a service that sends information proactively via a real-time news stream. Users can follow coworkers and data to receive broadcast updates about project and customer status. Users can form groups and post messages on each other's profiles to collaborate on their work. But wait, there's more! We'll throw in User:Jopgro, who wants you to know that the van der Veen brothers are the first to use their technique for customer service applications. It applies to all communication in the application: customers receiving an email can switch to a chat conversation within seconds - and the other way around. The van der Veens' Casengo software offers more options, such as a built-in Knowledge Base that can be filled with any information a customer would want or need to know about. Now how much would you pay? If you act now, we'll throw in User:Mooreevan, who rounded out Wikipedia by publishing the fact that the free version of FMYI provides file sharing, tasking, messaging, calendar and event sharing, customer support, search labels, tiered permission levels and email notifications and reminders. The paid versions may additionally include team tasking, custom importing, scheduled letters, surveys, advanced searching, topic tagging, post by email and heavily restricted permission settings for extranet usage, depending on the level of customization. Be one of the first 50 callers, and we'll send you not one, but two more COI editors! There's User:Wolf173 and User:Pascalcat, each working within days of each other to bring you the following knowledge: QuoteWerks utilizes a concurrent licensing system. With concurrent licensing, you can have an effectively unlimited number of users, though only X-number of people can actually log on at a given time (X being the number of licenses/seats). Real-time licenses use a reserved concurrency model. Whenever a user on the network uses the real-time data module, a license is reserved for that user and is not released until the user exits QuoteWerks. The number of real-time licenses does not need to match the total number of QuoteWerks licenses. So, for example, in a 2-user installation of QuoteWerks with a single Real-time license, if user 1 logs into QuoteWerks and uses the Real-time pricing first, user 2 will not be able to use Real-time pricing until user 1 logs out of QuoteWerks. And let's not forget User:CPB99! Without him, we'd never know that Quosal allows salespeople from virtually any industry to create accurate, high-quality quotes and/or proposals, and integrates with online distributors, CRM software and accounting platforms to reduce the time of the sales cycle. Whew! And that's just a random selection from Category:Customer relationship management software! I guess what we're all trying to say, Jimbo, is thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping Wikipedia free of advertising, so that article content is never beholden to the POV of the third-party advertiser! NPOV all the way, now and forever! - 2001:558:1400:10:65A8:CE7E:903A:3988 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Try AfD for each page: Indeed, "Category:Customer relationship management software" (CRM products) has over 100 pages, but I think the coverage of a product should span multiple years, rather than just major newspapers announcing a new product over 1-2 months. A key question is: "When is coverage about a product really just another source about the company, rather than an indication of separate notability for the product as a separate article?". Then redirect each product name back into the parent company page. -Wikid77 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

many of these pages are about the company, so redirecting them there is not the solution. the capabilities of a product are encyclopedic information, up to a point. I think the best distinction is whether the information is of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject &wanting to know what it does, rather than only to a prospective purchaser. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps separate page for Zimmerman

WP still has redirect "George Zimmerman" to article "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" (Feb. 2012) rather than a separate bio page, despite yet more news coverage about police investigating claims of domestic violence in Lake Mary, Florida, including allegedly shattering his estranged wife's laptop computer and a fight against her father (source: CBS News, "George Zimmerman taken into custody after incident with gun", September 9, 2013 3:11 pm). I would think that the coverage in wp:RS sources has exceeded wp:BLP1E, and now a separate page is needed to explain his background with guns, crime watch, and the current police investigation about claims of domestic violence, after his wife filed for divorce. It surprises me how some separate BLP bio pages are thwarted, even when their activities are widely reported for years. Any thoughts about this case yet? -Wikid77 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many good reasons for having a separate BLP on Zimmerman. Recent scandal-mongering is not one of them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

His being a private individual would argue against having an article on him alone. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing outside of the Trayvon shooting is notable. WP is NOTNEWS and certainly NOTTABLOIDNEWS. The press' fascination of him post-acquittal is equivalent to a gaper's delay. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is your response, Mr. Wales?

Mr. Wales, Friday came and went, but three's no response from you even in my spam folder.50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixing searches for Barret Brown

When I type in Barret Brown in the search box, the only choice i get is Barret Browning. (And even if I write Barret Brown, and press the search icon, then his name is not the first choice, but rather choice number four behind Barret Browning. What can be done to fix this? --Brown shoe yuptidoo (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)