User talk:Jimbo Wales

definitely not going to let Wikipedia become a PR platform

@Jimbo Wales: I noticed that you were interviewed for the Times. The Drum summarizes it as, you are ' “definitely not going to let Wikipedia become a PR platform” which he stated would be “so against all of our values”.' This sounds excellent, but I can't get the Times article itself unless I pay 12 pounds. Any comments here? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To get an answer from Jimbo Wales, please go to our shopping cart and pay a 6 pound fee. Oh, wait... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good sentiment, but I would respectfully suggest that Jimbo follow up by urging the WMF to take stronger action than it has to date to ban the practice. I believe that volunteer action in that regard is important, but also a waste of time unless the WMF does more than it has to protect the project's brand identity. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a PR platform is already covered by the rules. So what do you mean by "stronger action" to prevent it? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• More resources for, and action from the Legal department for a start. MER-C 11:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Publicizing our rules about WP:NOADS, WP:PAID, WP:COI to the general public. If folks don't know that they are not allowed to buy an article, they'll continue trying, and be prey for the most unethical of paid editors.
• Letting admins and ArbCom know that they are expected to enforce our rules, or at the very least not interfere with enforcement by others.Smallbones_(smalltalk)

The steps outlined above are good for starters. Also I'd suggest that the Foundation's board members and its paid employees act scrupulously to maintain a "cleaner than a hound's tooth" position on COI, lest they be subject to criticism from the usual, albeit laughingly hypocritical sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• The obvious step would be to make the Bright Line Rule official WMF policy. I believe the board could just vote and pass this - it's really just an extension of the board's policy on not accepting advertisements. In this case, it would just be "what do we do when companies put in ads anyway" and there would have to be some teeth behind the BLR, e.g. lawsuits. Or, if they want to go the route of changing the Terms of Use again, I'll predict that this would pass by 80%-20% again. It really is a simple to understand rule and nobody should worry about whether it will pass. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

True, but as I've been saying for some months now, this is fundamentally a brand identity problem, not one that should bother ordinary editors all that much. If the Foundation won't act, what of it? No skin off my rump. I find paid editing annoying, but it is not a life or death thing for me. It is for Wikipedia, but I just volunteer here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember too that the Bright Line Rule is no the be-all and end-all. There are ways around it. On this very page some months back we have an administrator talk about how he was paid by some guy who was the subject of an article, and got someone else to perform the edits that guy wanted. Voila! No bright line rule violation. Also we have had situations in which paid editors have essentially drafted articles outside of mainspace and gotten friendly editors to post their edits. That received a lot of publicity in BP. Again, it all comes down to brand identity and how the people most affected (Jimbo, the Foundation) feel about such things. If they don't like it, it is within their power to do something about it. The "community" is far too unwieldy and divided on this, as well as far too uninterested in COI issues, to pull the Foundation's chestnuts out of the fire. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support the board passing 'bright line rule' as a part of the terms of service. To really get it through, though, I need to be able to demonstrate the support of the community. That's hard, but can be accomplished if we are organized and strong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What would it take to convince the board? Presumably there would be a ToU RfC lasting at least a month with a banner directing people there. Nobody wants to have encyclopedia articles with hidden ads in them, so it's pretty obvious how that !voting will go - just like the paid editing ToU change went - 80% in favor of the change. If you want a petition before that (and on top of that!) just let me know how many signatures you think you need, and I'll see what I can do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What would you change? I'm no fan of advertorial, but I think the ToS on undisclosed COI, plus consensus at WP:COI, plus WP:CSD#G11 are all we need. Of course we sometimes fail to spot the promotional editors, just as we fail to spot vandals and POV-pushers, but they tend to get found out in the end. I am impatient with people who agitate to keep articles started by the subject, but they do at least tend to roll their sleeves up and fix them, because they tend to be long-term Wikipedians not just inclusionists-or-the-sake-of-it. Codifying what constitutes a COI is an obvious attempt to legislate Clue. What about True Believers? Where would they fit? Guy (Help!) 11:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I don't want to come off as opposing you here, but neither should anyone see g11 speedy as a panacea. Let's look at the last five g11's applied by DGG for example. Tony Angell [1]: failed. Katie Bulmer-Cooke [2]: failed. Manhattan Associates [3]: failed. Circle (company) [4]: failed. Angel Comedy [5]: failed. In no way is this a critique of DGG; I think these were exactly the sorts of cases where g11 should be applied. But there's some disconnect in carrying it out so we either get bogged down in labor-intensive deletion debates or get stuck with crummy articles. And this critique of speedy deletion as a means of handling promotional articles, and this erroneous invocation of inherited notability illustrate the kind of attitude we have to contend with. My feeling is that we have a system-wide breakdown in the ability to handle use of WP as a promotional platform, and our own ossified systems, processes and norms are part of the problem. - Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the 5 articles have failed as speedies but not necessarily as deletions--I think some of them will be deleted at afd, and I've nominated there the ones on Manahattan Associates, Bulmer-cooke, and Angel Comedy. Circle was no-consensus at afd, andI have not yet to decide whether to re-nominate it. Tony Angell was muc improved after I listed it, and I do not think it should now be deleted. It takes only one editor to defeat a speedy. G11 is not avery precisely defined criteria, and I would rarely say that an editor declining a speedy in good faith is doing wrong. We operate by consensus, and the test is afd, I do think there are some problems there, where the promotional nature of many articles is insufficiently realized and the article not get deleted. What is needed is increased awareness, I do however very strongly think the growth of promotionalism is the ain threat to our worthwhile existence as an encyclopedia. I can see a useful encyclopedia with broader or narrower coverage -- with more popular or more scholarly content. I do not thin an n encycopedia repeating what the subjects of articles say for themselves has any value in the world whatsoever. Even if a few npov articles remain, their value would be contaminated and thrown into question. Nor would many volunteers want to provide free work for people collecting the money under the guise of being able to write articles, but being themselves unable to write one acceptably. I came here to provide free work,but for for people who want to learn how to dog ood free work here themselves., not for those who left to their own devices would destroy us. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Putting Wikipedia's reputation and brand identity in the hands of "the community" (meaning whoever turns out for a discussion) strikes me as an unsound policy, but that's not my call. Good luck with it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What would change if BLR becomes part of the Terms of Use?

I agree with Guy that “the ToS on undisclosed COI, plus consensus at WP:COI, plus WP:CSD#G11 are all we need”, or at least it should be all we need to stop paid advocates from editing articles on the companies that pay them. Unfortunately, it seems that some people don’t agree.

For example we have ArbCom saying last February “6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing” [6]

We have lots of articles at AFC that are clearly written by employees to promote their employers. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Note that I’m not accusing the article submitters of avoiding our rules in bad faith. Rather, I’m saying that we need to let them know in no uncertain terms, before they submit the articles, that these types of articles are against our rules.

At AfD we have articles such as Caidin Film Company, Horseshoe Bossier City, Shermco Industries UNETSHA. Why weren’t these companies told loud and clear that we don’t give away free advertising? Why does it take years to get these articles deleted?

A simple clear policy embedded in the ToU would stop all of this, if it is well publicized and backed up by the WMF legal department.

Let the WMF write the prospective ToU change, but the simplest, clearest statement that I’ve seen is the bright line rule. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons to dislike me or be skeptical of me etc. I have many failings. But I take great pride in a peculiar ability to sometimes just say what is right, in a simple way. So, thank you for appreciating it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You keep talking about backup from the WMF legal department, but TOU are rarely enforceable againts third parties in a civil court. WMF Legal are never going to actively sue a company for employing someone to edit wikipedia against the TOU. It would be laughed out. It would also open them up to counter-suits for all the times Wikipedia has had blatantly skewed/NPOV/inaccurate information. Wikipedia defends itself against Corps who accuse it of misinformation/bias by pointing out info is all sourced elsewhere and that any real inaccurate info is removed quickly. The corp's defense for engaging in paid editing would be that it is required to in order to defend its reputation against Wikipedia's anonymous editors who repeatedly smear it and affect its business. The WMF's money pile would be quickly eaten up in legal costs once that gets going. Given that the WMF has been completely unwilling to do anything about serial death threats, abuse etc from a *known private individual* it has the name and address of and can provide cast iron evidence in relation to, and you honestly expect them to take on big business in a case they would likely lose? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is that the US legal system is incapable of supporting an ad-free community on the internet. If advertisers are counting on that, then there should be no complaints when they get themselves in trouble. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

By the logic employed by "Only in Death," there could be no meaningful TOU because it could not be "enforced in court." First of all, that's questionable at best. Companies prohibit all kinds of misconduct in their TOUs, and act against transgressors when it becomes a serious problem. Only on Wikipedia does obvious stuff like the BLR not get put in for all kinds of dubious excuses. However, if I understand JzG right, it is possible that there already is a sufficient community consensus so that the Foundation could go ahead and insert that rather obvious provision into the TOU, and feel it has "community support," whatever that means. Of course the Foundation could put up all kinds of bureaucratic obstacles and require an RfC or whatever before it improves its TOU. But as I keep saying, if it does, why should any of us care? Are we really hurt if the project's brand name and reputation are hurt? Hell no! Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

With a few exceptions that is the case. TOU for websites (and software in general) essentially allow the company (in this case the WMF) a reason to restrict access (ban) someone under their own rules. Its not enforceable through a civil court. A TOU is also not enforceable against a third party who has not actually agreed to it or violated it. A corporation who engages in hiring someone to edit wikipedia has not agreed to the TOU as they are neither accessing nor editing wikipedia directly. The paid editor is, however as the WMF is not interested in requiring registration to edit, an IP address is rarely sufficient to take someone to court as it alone is not considered enough to identify someone. See previous cases RE media torrents where people have been sent pay up or else letters. There is sufficient reason (and consensus) to put the provision in the TOU, as the TOU is the basis on which people can be banned, but thinking the WMF is going to take any legal action over it is ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the WMF has been, is, and probably will forever be timid and lacking in deterrent credibility on this issue. It is interesting that there seems to be a consensus, at least among the people here, that there is sufficient community consensus to support adding the BLR to the TOU. Jimbo Wales, please note that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet we sue the NSA which, while important, is not our fight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

That's right. Perhaps there are major donors (the true constituency of any nonprofit) who desired it. Clearly donors are not pressing for action on the Wikipedia-as-advertising issue. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, where would they get their free advertising then? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You are just libeling our donors, who donate on average something like $15 each. The folks who put in their "free ads", taking advantage of a non-profit organization, are just thieves. We've never had a policy allowing free ads, but they just steal them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The logical failure you make here is the equation of paid COI editing with advertising. Certainly some paid COI editors churn out promotional fluff which is little more than glorified advertising. But what of a company staffer correcting information about a chief executive or providing a sourced update of sales figures or fixing the spelling of the name of a product? You would damn all such constructive editing to the same treatment. The community has no stomach for that. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as beating a dead straw man? No one really cares about such minor things as what you mention. Those things do not come to our attention. Using such edge cases to obstruct the genuine, major, problem of paid editors a) creating articles on non-notable subjects b) paid editors whitewashing existing articles and c) paid editors creating poor articles on minor subjects which suck up volunteer time because they pass the very low bar GNG and NCORP have become does no service to the encyclopedia. Keeping that kind of crap under control is a massive time/effort sink and someone with a financial incentive will always be willing to put in more time/effort than a volunteer. Wikipedia is not a friggin business directory nor is it a promo site for third rate bands nor a place for those with an inflated sense of self-importance to have a biography. If a subject needs a paid-editor to get an article then it should not have an article.

There are, of course, the usual exceptions for GLAMs etc. - those people paid to put non-promotional knowledge into Wikipedia but then again for every librarian I see dumping articles on 19th century literature into Wikipedia I see thousands of paid editors writing cruft and spam. (Well lots anyway - I have never run across a spammy librarian) Jbh^Talk 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite:

You tell me that

“The logical failure you make here is the equation of paid COI editing with advertising”.

The logical failure that you (Carrite) make is not knowing the definition of the word “advertising.” You seem to think that it necessarily involves puffery, blatant promotion, and misleading information. Let’s clear this up right now. We have prohibitions against advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing, all prohibited by WP:NOT. It would help if you knew what those things are.

There shouldn’t be any confusion about the definition of the word “advertising,” dictionary.com gives us:

“Advertising

noun

1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.:

to get more customers by advertising.”

So let’s start with a very simple example. A farmer posts the following notice on one of his fenceposts

“Hay for sale. Inquire at McDonald’s farm”

This is absolutely an advertisement. He is calling the public’s attention to one of his products. If he put the same words in a newspaper, it would be called a classified ad. If he painted the words on the side of a barn, or on a specially constructed board, it would be called a billboard ad. If he put it on the radio or tv, it would be a broadcast ad. If he pays somebody to put it on Wikipedia (or does it himself) it is still an ad.

If that definition is too broad for you, consider that we also prohibit promotion (definition:”something devised to publicize or advertise a product, cause, institution, etc., as a brochure, free sample, poster, television or radio commercial, or personal appearance). Advertising is a subset of promotion, so even if you think McDonald’s ad is a “borderline ad”, it is certainly promotion, and is prohibited. Public relations (definition: ”the actions of a corporation, store, government, individual, etc., in promoting goodwill between itself and the public, the community, employees, customers, etc.”) is also a subset of promotion. PR is also prohibited on Wikipedia.

If those definitions are too broad for you, consider marketing (definition: “the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling”). Advertising, PR, and promotion are all subsets of marketing. Marketing is also prohibited on Wikipedia.

Frankly, I think that almost anything that a business would want to pay people to do on Wikipedia is marketing and is prohibited. The example of somebody being paid to correct the middle initial of the CEO is essentially mythical, it doesn’t happen (maybe 1 in 1,000,000 COI edits). If it did happen, nobody would even notice, and if they did notice, nobody would complain.

So people who insert ads into Wikipedia, unless they don’t know our rules, are just stealing this “service” from a non-profit. IMHO they are equivalent to those people who go around after a natural disaster collecting money for the victims - claiming to represent a charity - and then keep the money for themselves.

The editor above who claims that the employers of paid editors can not be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees is just as wrong as Carrite. Of course employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees taken during the course of business (see Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio for one example).

It’s time for the apologists for paid editors wake up and smell the coffee. There are no logical arguments to allow the usual type of advertising on Wikipedia.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is a vacuum of leadership from WMF. For starters, I'd like to see a wall of shame where we and the world get to see what WMF Legal is doing. Why aren't the lawyer letters like this posted in a prominent gallery? I had to dig hard to just find this letter and I'd already seen it once before. The last COI blog post from WMF [12] is dated 2013, for heaven's sake. Second, more resources for tools to help fight COI. There's a page of suggestions at User:Doc James/Paid editing. As it stands nobody knows how expansive they can be with their thinking because there's been no support from WMF to even discuss possibilities. Third, WMF should be rallying their massive public support for more law enforcement in the U.S., and publicize the results. Was there any investigation of Orangemoody actors? Is there a RICO or wire fraud angle that the FBI is interested in? What's the last FTC or SEC engagement in illegal promotion of companies for pre-IPO or post-IPO stock pumping? Is this even something WMF cares about? — Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are good ideas, but another part of the problem is timidity on the part of the WMF, as well as, perhaps, an oversolicitous attitude to sheer drivel of the kind expounded by Carrite above. Not having attended their meetings it's hard to sense what kind of dynamics are at work, but one can guess on the basis of how little it has done. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact is — and something of which the tiny circle of anti-paid-editing fanatics (and we do know all three of them by name) seem oblivious — is that much or most WP editing by paid COI editors happens under the radar because it is in the nature of uncontroversial corrections to content. At the same time, the worst and most objectionable paid COI editing takes place on behalf of generally small companies, software entities, book writers, public speakers, consultants, lawyers, etc. who seek to advertise their wares in contradiction of site notability and NPOV requirements. There is strong community consensus that the former is okay, assuming declaration of connection is made. There is strong community consensus that the latter is very much not okay, whether or not declaration is made. But that's not enough for the fanatic fringe, who want to do an end run around the community via WMF fiat. Spoiler alert: WMF does not manage content, the community does. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis

I'd be interested in your view as to whether Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be a biography, an article on the same-sex marriage kerfuffle, or two articles, one on each. I closed an RfC as supporting a single article rather than multiple, and I don't think it should be a biography, I agree with the former, but I could be wrong in both views. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty clear case of BLP1E, in which case we normally don't have an article on the person, but on the event. We have additional considerations here in that she's taken a highly controversial position that makes it more likely that she will be subjected to abuse and harassment in her Wikipedia entry, which we would have to clean up. The thing I always ask myself is this: are we likely to have enough information on this person to write an actual high quality biography. If not, then we shouldn't have a biography at all.

I'd additionally question the wisdom of having an article on this kerfuffle at all as it seems very short-lived and relatively unimportant. But if we are to have anything, then I suppose that's the best option.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooooo, just clicked and see that there's still a biography. Where was the discussion and how did you close it? I perhaps have misunderstood the situation here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)#RfC:_Two_articles_or_one.3F_.28Or_three.3F.29 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm sorry, but I think you're underestimating how big this story has gotten in the U.S. There is a huge body of news about her meeting with the Pope, for example. Some people are actually criticizing the Pope because he met with her.[13] That's truly a case of the tail wagging the dog, sure, but in terms of notability, this BLP1E has flown the coop. Wnt (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's probably right. She'll be a Joe the Plumber-like figure in the current campaign cycle. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally doubt this is going to turn into a Joe the Plumber scenario outside of, maybe, the Republican primaries when candidates are trying too court the most Conservative of their constituents. During the national elections I doubt the Republican candidate is going to harp on SSM too much. It's too well supported by the majority of the US and that's not a good strategy to get the centrist vote. They'll already have the vote of those who are against SSM mainly by default. I'm of the opinion that she's currently not notable outside of the controversy itself and my bet is it's going to stay that way. Capeo (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's still very much a BLP1E. It's an ongoing press circus, but "meeting the Pope" is not independently notable. Consider it this way - she met with the Pope with a group of people - without the original incident, this would be absolutely unnoticed. She remains notable for only one thing. Remember - adding more details and more ramifications and so on about the event doesn't give us any more information about her for the purpose of a biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, so Jimbo has the full picture... There are currently two open discussions on this topic (RM, AfD), each slowly but surely winding to a procedural close. Without doubt, there's a consensus to move the article about the person to the article about the controversy. There remains a minor discussion of whether the person is notable for a separate article, which seems more and more unlikely, but there seems no doubt that the controversy, which is currently at the biography, will be moved elsewhere. This wasn't helped, btw, by a snow close of keep for the article about the person. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no realistic chance of it being deleted, so snow keep is correct; there needs to be one article, per the RfC, the remaining question is what title that article should have. Jimbo agrees that it should be clearly identified as an article on the controversy not a biography, which is also my view having read the comments at the RfC I closed. So that leaves two obvious options: one includes her name in the title, the other does not. Obviously any dab page for Kim Davis would link ot this article, we're not going to try to pretend that she doesn't exist or airbrush her out of the picture, all we're going to do is what we always do, which is to try to cover the facts without joining in the bunfight over shaming of people who do stupid things. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I would invite you to move the article over the current controversy article forthwith, as it was originally split from the biography - a little out of process, but that's probably not important. It can almost be deleted under G7. We can then set about fine-tuning the title, and discovering whether a separate biography can be written/deleted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I had more or less come to the same conclusion, I opened a thread on ANI to talk this through with fellow admins. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Right now the title "Kim Davis (county clerk)" describes a pure biography, with nothing about the controversy, even though there is a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it. This ongoing controversy (international coverage, court cases, legal decisions, jailing, political/social/religious hero) is her only claim to fame. The article's current scope and content are properly weighted to emphasize the controversy, including her sole and central role, which all RS confirm. A new title must accurately reflect that content. It doesn't do that now.

We just need a change of title (by moving to the redirect) so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. Nothing else need be done! Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems and everyone gets their wish: (1) those who want a biography will find some biographical content, and (2) those who want an event article will find a whole lot of content documenting that. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title, the one which accurately describes the actual content? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the net effect of all this wrangling is that we faithfully preserve the reader's impression that Kim Davis is a lone kook on an idiosyncratic crusade, with no place for mention of two other clerks in Kentucky and a whole bunch in some other state that continue to refuse to issue licenses also. It seems to have become a pillar around here that anything about an event the media doesn't stress, we shouldn't say. I wish Wikipedia would place a lower priority on preserving reader's impressions. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, the two other clerks are mentioned in the article with the extremely minimal weight they deserve. Why? Because they are not activists, their actions have hardly been noticed by the media, and the ACLU has stated that they are not targets for legal action. That's why their stories disappear down a small worm hole. The ACLU chose to focus on Kim Davis, and her obsessive form of activism (even "terrorizing" her fellow clerks) made it inevitable that the ACLU and major international media would focus on her. Her notability is no accident, but it's still solely because of this controversy, and she doesn't deserve a pure biography separate from the controversy. One article is enough for this. This is not a case where WP:SPINOFF allows us to remove the controversy to another article, leaving her with a pure biography. If you used Google Alerts, as I do for many of the subjects I edit, you'd realize that Kim Davis and her controversy have become the daily focus of major international media.

Anyone is very welcome to make a generic article about the subject of "Same-sex marriage license controversies". The subject is notable, so the content can include non-notable individuals like those other clerks. You will be able to find some mention of other individuals and make a decent article, but putting them all together, their collective splash on the national and international RS won't approach what's happened with Kim Davis. That article would then mention Kim Davis as the most notable objector, and devote a whole section to her, with a "main" hatnote pointing to her article, where the full story would reside, all per summary style.

We must remember that her "one event" is a cascading series of actions, events, and legal actions, with her at the center, some of which will have lasting effects. Her lawyers can be thanked for some of that, but politicians, religious leaders, and other homophobic activists also have a large share of the responsibility.

Our job here is to document the sum total of human knowledge (which includes lies, conspiracy theories, quackery, crackpots, etc.) with roughly the same weight found in RS, and to transmit that same weight as an impression to readers. That's what we do here. NPOV forbids editors from letting their own POV influence how much weight they give a subject. They must reproduce the weight and spirit found in RS, without any censorship. We must not give a subject any more or less weight than RS give it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Actualyl the question that needs to be settled is the final title for the merged articles. Which, IMO, should not include the name of Kim Davis, for the reasons set out above: BLP1E and the fact that there are other clerks who are either very lucky or letting Davis "take one for the team". Guy (Help!) 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely should not have its current title, and I can't understand why it hasn't been changed already. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There's already a title for the merged article, which may or may not change after the RM is concluded (I assume that we still respect consensus). As pointed out numerous times, BLP1E doesn't apply in this case because the subject fails to meet all three necessary criteria. Numerous examples were also given of similar Wikipedia biographies in which the subjects suddenly became very notable. Although BullRangifer and I disagree on the title, his assessment otherwise is well-grounded in policy and practice.- MrX 15:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MrX, while I also disagree with BullRangifer's suggested title, I'm curious as to what your preferred title is and why -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff: I will refer you to my detailed comments on the article talk page for a more detailed answer, but in short, my preferred title is 'Kim Davis'. I created this article as a biography because it is obvious that the subject is notable for being at the center of a historic series of events of national (and now international) significance. I never intended the scope to include political reactions, detailed legal commentary, and insignificant other examples of civil disobedience in Kentucky. The appropriateness of the title is evident in how sources report on the subject and in the fact that the page is viewed roughly every 9 seconds. Readers would not be served by giving the article an obscure title like 'Miller vs. Davis' or 'Rowan County Same-Sex Marriage License Controversy'. Our guidelines say to use natural, recognizable, and concise titles, which is what we currently have. Again, my detailed arguments and rebuttals to other arguments are on the article talk page and archives. I think you will see that I've given considerable thought to this in the context of our policies and guidelines, rather than just pointing vaguely to policy shortcuts. - MrX 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MrX, using the title Kim Davis for the current article is a clear violation of WP:PSEUDO -- How do you square that? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I've answered that on the article talk pages as well. First, you can't "violate" an essay. Second, even if one does accept the essay as useful advice, the subject still easily passes the general test as I have detailed on the article talk page. - MrX 18:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MrX wrote above: "I created this article as a biography because it is obvious that the subject is notable for being at the center of a historic series of events of national (and now international) significance." No, you didn't create it as a biography. You keep changing sides; first it's a biography, and then it's an event. No, it's both, and the title needs to reflect that fact.

As I wrote to you elsewhere, you are forgetting that you created the article, with this content: "Kim Davis is a Rowan County, Kentucky clerk noted for defying the US Supreme Court ruling requiring that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell v. Hodges case.", supported by two refs, and a YouTube video. Then you added more of the same types of refs. You clearly created a bio/event article. It immediately becomes apparent that you knew what made her notable ("noted for defying"). You need to get your story straight, because you keep changing sides. You are the one who started the article as a bio/controversy, not a pure bio. Now you want to keep it as a pure biography, but that idea has been rejected several times. She not notable apart from the controversy, so that makes no sense. Both AfDs made it plain that a pure biography would not have survived, and they approved the article with the current content and scope, a biography/event article with the main weight on the controversy.

After her notability for those actions was apparent because events kept rolling in that direction, and the beginnings of the article were in place, there were some editors who sought to go back in history to find RS of a purely biographical character, and then add that content to the existing article. (It was with this edit that the very first personal (biographical) content was added.) To some degree that's okay, but that does not erase the reason she is notable. An attempt to then remove the parts documenting that reason and leave a pure biography were unsuccessful, since, as someone only notable for the controversy, what would be left would not survive an AfD. The content documenting why the person became notable must remain in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're making a lot of assumptions about my intentions based (I guess) on the types of sources I used and how I worded the lead. I've been consistent in asserting that the article is a biography from the beginning. I don't know what a "pure biography" is, other than an attempt at a semantic argument.- MrX 19:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, BLP1E does not apply in this case (see point 3). The controversy isn't over, it's very notable, and her involvement is about as central as can be imagined (like the role of Jesus in the Crucifixion of Jesus). She will always be noted as the historical pioneering person who took the most notable stand on the issue of same-sex marriage licenses. Any others were not notable. No other clerks have made any significant splash in RS for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the ACLU chose to target her, and they stated they will not target the others for prosecution.

Two other very significant reasons are that the other two clerks in Kentucky have (1) not had a single case of same-sex couples applying for licenses, so (2) they haven't even denied such licenses. Their roles, stories, and mention in RS simply disappear down a very tiny hole of insignificance. We do briefly mention them, but that's it. There is literally nothing more to say. In a generic article they would be mentioned among many others who object, but not among those who actually refused to issue licenses (are there any others?). They would only get a couple sentences each.

We're dealing with a bio/event article (we have lots of them), and WP:COMMONNAME and RS dictate that her name is so intimately connected with the whole series of events that her name should be included in the title of the ONE article we need to solve all this mess. BUT, Coretheapple is right, the current title is totally inadequate and does not accurately describe the actual scope and content of the article. It must do that. That's why it shouldn't just mention Davis, but should also include the controversy. The title Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy solves ALL the problems perfectly. Otherwise, as noted above, anyone is very welcome to also make a generic article about the subject of "Same-sex marriage license controversies", but it won't replace or reduce this one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, doing a news search shows that Davis has largely fallen out of the current news cycle [14] -- as I've explained previously, this story isn't dependent on Davis per se, it's roots are centered on the power of a county clerk to deny people marriage licenses -- How do you intend to overcome the large opposition [15] to your suggested title??? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RS and COMMONNAME say otherwise, as does your search. She's still in the news, and if all this fuss wasn't occurring, I'd be adding more good content I have collected.

Otherwise, the later fate of an individual or event does not affect the original reasons for the creation of an article. The article has been created and it has survived two AfDs, and we don't use CRYSTALBALL to judge whether we should keep it or not. The future can only determine what MORE content it gets. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, you are stating opinion as fact. You think BLP1E doesn't apply, I think it does. So does Jimbo. Which means, at the very least, that it is something on which reasonable people may differ. The grounds on which it supposedly doesn't apply, as stated to date, include her "having achieved elected office". Our long list of articles at Category:County clerks shows how this is an obvious qualification for notability. Or would, if we had biographies of any significant number of other county clerks. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss this, because it's rather crucial. I thought the winning !voters in the previous RfCs and AfDs explained clearly why BLP1E's point 3 does not apply to Davis. Here it is: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Both factors do not apply to her: (1) The event (a whole series of events) is very notable and (2) her role is as central as the role of Jesus in the Crucifixion of Jesus. That title indicates the idea: the person and event are both in the title. That's what we need.

If she later becomes more notable for other things, then a split creating a pure biography (keeping the current title, could be justified, but the current article content would still remain, with a title which includes her and the controversy. There is no controversy about this particular issue apart from her. The other clerks have not denied any applicants. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Jimbo Wales, since you believe he shares your opinion. I'd like to hear his input. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Attempts to legislate clue do not override the very obvious fact that she is known only for this one thing, and without this one thing there would definitely not be an article on her. Coverage of her is always in the context of the event, coverage of the event rarely fails to mention her but there are others involved. That's what we mean by a person known only for one event, in which case we write about the event not the person, as Jimmy said above. I think Davis is the victim of cynical exploitation by fundamentalist whackos, but that's not the point, the point is that as a person we are setting about immortalising her for one piece of idiocy that she will hopefully one day want to forget. It's about Wikipedia not being evil. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Broaden as Kentucky statewide page

I think it would be better as part of "Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversies" because a major aspect of the Kentucky law was to impeach a Kentucky probate judge who does not follow the laws, but could not be "fired" for refusal to perform office duties. One popular refrain about her not issuing marriage licenses was: "Either do your job or resign" (like a vegan cook who refuses to cook meat dishes at a general restaurant), and again, a major point is the difficulty in Kentucky to get a probate judge to follow the laws, or remove them from office, much more important than the antics of whoever the judge was who refused to issue marriage licenses (and there have been several across the U.S.). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That article has already been AfDed for good reason. You show you aren't familiar with the long-running controversy over this article. If that article were resurrected, it would need a different scope and content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

An early procedural close is certainly not the same as delete the article for good reason... especially when the person (JzG) who closed the AfD offered this title as an option in the subsequent/continuing move discussion. It's like the early keep of the article about the woman doesn't mean we must keep her biography. One needs to look beyond the narrow bureaucracy of the closures in these discussions, and towards joining together this prolonged clusterfuck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement of that AfD inappropriately introduced the idea that "... the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen". In fact, only one person out of sixteen who commented in the original RfC actually suggested a merge to Miller v. Davis. I agree this is a "prolonged clusterfuck", but probably not for the same reason that you do.- MrX 18:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I accept that Miller v. Davis came somewhere out of leftfield, but even that RfC left open a decision for two articles, so again, I suggest no one goes by the short title of these closures. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Although the process was broken from the get-go, it's worth noting that Miller v. Davis is the current favorite title/merge [16] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. That subject is a classic legal stand alone article. It is properly summarized in this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

zzuuzz, yes, one could say "even that RfC left open a decision for two articles", but that would be this one (with a better title) and Miller v. Davis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Salient points

We need to get focused, so here's a summary of where we are now:

1. The article's scope and content (a biography with weight on the controversy) has survived two AfDs. That must not change.
2. A pure biography article has been rejected multiple times. She is not notable apart from the controversy.
3. A pure event article has also been rejected (the AfD for the "Kentucky...." article was closed "merge"). The controversy does not exist anywhere apart from Kim Davis. She is central to it.
4. The current title describes a pure biography (a rejected idea), and does not accurately describe the scope and content. Our titles must be accurate.
5. The scope and content are not up for discussion, only the title, and it must change.

My opinion on the ideal solution is well-known: Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. If you don't agree with any of the points above, please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "ideal solution" has been knocked down over, and over, and over again [17] -- Your continued repetition doesn't change anything -- The AfD you mentioned declared that there should only be 1 article, and the subsequent RfC (link above) has clearly shown that a large number of editors do not support what you are trying to do here. Please respect and take into consideration other points of view. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. As you are an editor who has repeatedly shown that they have not carefully studied or been involved in ALL the relevant articles, their histories, their discussions, and their multiple RfDs and AfDs, I really don't rate your opinion very highly. Competence is required, and your comments on aspects for which you have obviously not performed due diligence speaks volumes. RfCs and AfDs welcome fresh eyes, but we expect those eyes to have performed due diligence, but you, and many of those whose opinions you value, have not done that. Therefore their comments are worse than useless and actually disruptive. They muddy the waters and create confusion. It's best to only speak about that of which you know, and be silent about matters you have not thoroughly examined. Otherwise a difference of opinion is perfectly fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It is extremely disruptive to give your opinion and then hat the exchange (which I've now removed and you should know better) -- I am well aware of what is taking place at the Kim Davis (county clerk) article. Your continued persistence against a wide swathe of outside opinion doesn't help anyone. It's okay that you disagree, but trying to silence opposition is not only disrespectful, but disruptive as well. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That word "must". Nope. Frankly, the article needs new eyes. It's dominated by people obsessed with the person Kim Davis, and as Jimbo says, she simply is nto important (though I think she would dearly love to be, and is being cynically exploited as a useful idiot by some very unpleasant people). Guy (Help!) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi Jimbo, until recently I was active in editing our article on Electronic cigarette which has various issues, and at my request Arbcom opened a case about it here on 4th August. An extended timescale was agreed so the workshop phase of the case ended on 25th August. Six weeks have now passed during which nobody has edited the proposed decision phase at all. There were three drafting arbitrators, all of whom have become inactive and they were replaced by a fourth drafting arbitrator who promised to post a proposed decision by 3rd October and then went inactive. Arbcom are now unresponsive to discussions on the case talk page. Clerks are politely expressing their frustration now too, and what I'd like is for Arbcom to admit that they don't have capacity to deal with the case and close it (so that I can bring it to another venue such as AN/I). Advice or suggestions would be really welcome at this point. All the best—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This ArbCom — some of whom were elected based on expressions that the process was too slow and in need of reform — has been the slowest and least transparent of any I have seen since coming to WP in 2008. They left Lightbreather hanging in the wind for about two months before effectively doing nothing to punish her off-wiki harasser. They're still in the process of an evidence-free slow motion botch job in the clarification request relating to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). These are only two instances of a series. My recommendation, if they don't ban you to the moon in this case (I haven't been following it, I have no idea if you are a saint or a sinner), is that you vote out each and every one — 100% — of incumbents who run for re-election. And then do the same thing next year. A complete cleaning of house is needed, ASAP. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The proposed decision is being worked on currently, and will be posted when it is ready. I have asked that this be communicated on the case page by the arbitrator now leading this, and I apologise that this has not been done. I also apologise again for the length of time this case has been open, but unfortunately arbitrators have real lives that they must sometimes prioritise above Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Same song, 9th verse. What exactly has been done to expedite the case process? Have evidence and debate windows been shortened? Have hard deadlines for decisions been set? Have subcommittees been created to divide the tasks and make sure than 14 people aren't simultaneously buried in intractable cases? Has any effort been made for public discussion by Arbs in the name of transparency? Has time been allowed for community processes to work themselves through before acceptance of cases and clarification motions? Does anyone even care that ArbCom has become a dysfunctional institution? Carrite (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• What exactly has been done to expedite the case process? The main time factor is normally the time taken to read and evaluate all the evidence and other comment presented and work out what remedies are appropriate to resolve the issues identified - and what is presented publicly is not 100% of what we have to read - for the "Kww and The Rambling Man" case for example I have 163 emails tagged as related to that and an unknown number that required reading but did not merit saving; the Lightbreather case generated several times that many. Other than not hearing and/or not evaluating all the evidence, what can be done to expedite this? Voting on a case also depends on arbitrators having the time to review the evidence and proposals, what can be done to increase this time?
• Have evidence and debate windows been shortened? Varying timescales (longer and shorter) have been tried for cases this year, it has not made any significant impact.
• Have hard deadlines for decisions been set? They have been rejected as pointless - there is always a reason for a deadline being missed and a hard deadline would not altar this.
• Have subcommittees been created to divide the tasks and make sure than 14 people aren't simultaneously buried in intractable cases? Subcommittees have been discussed several times, in public and internally, and have failed to reach consensus on every occasion.
• Has any effort been made for public discussion by Arbs in the name of transparency? Almost all the discussions that take place in private are held in private for a reason. Most often that reason is one or more of, (a) the discussion involves non-public mataterial and so cannot be held in public; (b) it would not be practical for the discussion to be held in public (it would be more complicated, take longer, and/or result in confusion) - often because we would have to spend time dealing with comments that were not helpful for the goal of resolving the dispute; (c) the discussion is not relevant to anyone other than arbs and/or clerks; or (d) it is an appeal where internal discussion by arbitrators is the only remaining option.
• Has time been allowed for community processes to work themselves through before acceptance of cases and clarification motions? Yes - we only accept cases where all community processes have been tried and have failed, or where it is clear that attempting further community processes would be pointless. For clarification requests, we only spend any significant time on them when it is clear that there is something that that we need to clarify. Note though that we have no control over when requests are brought to us and we cannot prevent premature requests being made. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a new idea. Why don't we make ArbCom like jury duty? If you're an administrator holding tools, you become part of the jury pool, with 12 (or 6) people selected to hash out each case before being dismissed. The case acceptance policy can be via community RFC. I'll bet cases wouldn't take 4 months if they were being run by 6 conscripts instead of a stolid crew of electees. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good idea, but why just use administrators? If you look at ANI and AN, most of them are struggling to be very responsive. Open it up to all editors with over 4,000 edits. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reading through all of the statements on Evidence pages, on Workshop pages and their associate talk pages, plus checking out hundreds of diffs and days/weeks of email debate....I think that, like jury duty, most editors would try to get a pass out of serving. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And a significant fraction of those who want the job would be totally unsuited for it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll gladly serve--the moment I understand how the whole setup works. Neil, who'd want to serve, given the amount of crap you have to read and the thanks you get at the end? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

those who want to resolve disputes, those with an axe to grind, those with an agenda, those who love drama, those who (naively or otherwise) think it doesn't involve much work and/or brings lots of rewards, those who want to give something back to Wikipedia. Only some of them should be allowed anywhere near arbitration. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

{{ec]} For obvious reasons it would also only be open to those who are willing and able to comply with the Foundation's m:Access to nonpublic information policy, including accepting the m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. It can in theory take up to a couple of weeks for all the paperwork to be completed (it depends on the method used to identify to the Foundation and the workload of those receiving it; it took about 5 days in my case iirc as I didn't have immediate access to a scanner and timezones meant that emails were not acted upon immediately they were sent). Another thing to consider, is that the more people have access to non-public information, discussion archives, etc. the greater chance there is of confidentiality being breached (either intentionally or accidentally). Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying Arbcom is easy. You didn't see me volunteering for it, and you won't. But, those that did volunteer in the knowledge of what they were getting into, should either follow through or throw in the towel and allow someone else to be elected to replace them. To be clear, there's plenty of activity from Arbcom. They're happily voting to accept new cases, for example. The inactivity is on the case page. If there are secret discussions taking place in a secret space, then great, but I see no evidence of that, nobody's said that to us and the talk page is being completely ignored. I have to embarrass a response out of an arbitrator by posting on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Dispute resolution is fundamentally about communication skills, folks.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My issue at the moment is that I have plenty of time in 5-10 minute blocks which allows for things like this, clarification requests, etc, but is not at all useful for digesting and interpreting the evidence in cases - I don't know about other arbs but I really need blocks of at least 1-2 hours at a time before I can do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying you did have time to engage in conversation about cases?—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "convesation about cases"? Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean that you did have time to read talk page posts and make brief replies over the period in question. It was within your powers to speak to the parties. After an arbitrator had set expectations for a proposed decision by 3rd October, but then failed to meet them, someone from Arbcom did have a few minutes to post on the case talk page and talk to the parties.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:The_Committee. And while (as Thryduulf is well aware) I think it's appropriate to question individual committee decisions, overall it's obviously a huge times sink crap job and not being hasty is a virtue, not a fault. It would help somewhat if they spin off the CU/OS appointment stuff into community election. The current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Catflap08_and_Hijiri88 case is ridiculous; there's no great encyclopedic principles at stake, just a couple disruptive editors the greater community has failed to deal and thereby dumped onto the committee. NE Ent 10:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the Committee's job to deal with "great encyclopedic principles", rather the mundane "disruptive editors the greater community has failed to deal".

Not glamorous, not fun and not easy.

But of course the committee has been given, or taken, other powers, making it, as Thryduulf says, attractive to The Wrong People, as well as the right ones. And there is no oversight of the committee - Quis custodiet indeed. WP:TNT anyone?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

• I understand the frustration, but I do wonder: how can we expect a group of elected volunteers to make rapid work of what are, by definition, intractable disputes? Guy (Help!) 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I would expect that people who voluntarily elect to run for a position that is known to have tremendous obligations would do so knowing the tremendous obligations and if they lack the time to fully commit to fulfilling those tremendous obligations they do not run for the position. That should be a new mandatory question for all ArbCom candidates: Are you able and willing to commit X hours of work every week of your term to fulfill the extensive duties of an ArbCom member? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am able to commit X hours, what I'm not able to do at the moment is commit X consecutive hours. Regardless, when I stood as a candidate I would have answered "yes, as far as I can forsee" to either phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't expect them to make rapid work of them, necessarily. All I really expect is for Arbcom to give realistic timescales, communicate with us when they're unable to make progress, and meet the commitments they set for themselves.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If the ArbCom conducted its deliberations on-wiki, we could all see for ourselves how the cases were progressing and how much work the arbitrators were actually putting into them. Everyking (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Previous email list leaks have shown that the list is not used solely for "stuff which can't be disclosed". Of course current Arbs may protest that "that was then and this is now" -- but virtually no one who was on the leaked mailing list came out well.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

Bad decisions and slow performance are not mutually exclusive. That has been, all too often, what we have been getting. It really is pretty simple. Arbcom needs to split itself in half and not have the full committee take every case. Arbcom needs to shorten deadlines for evidence. Arbcom needs to require all but the most sensitive evidence be presented in public. Arbcom needs to require of itself that all but the most sensitive evidence be deliberated in public. Arbcom needs to set hard-and-fast deadlines for decisions to be put to a vote and for a clock to run on the voting process. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular objections myself to the current situation, or to the perceived delays in resolution. Some of these cases can involve a disgusting amount of time and effort expenditure. Reading all the damn evidence submitted, trying to determine what fragment of that actually is evidence, and against who, and how much evidence on the misconduct of this that or the other editor is shown by it, trying to see what sort of resolution is possible, and on, and on, and on.... The number of people willing to subject themselves to trying to do that reasonably is very small, and the number of them who could be reasonably trusted as competent enough to not screw it up badly even smaller. Having said all that, of course, if there were some way to get some of the people who have proven to be effective at that position, and I will not name that New York Boy by name, to keep doing that job through coercion, I'd probably support it if I could avoid getting my real name revealed and thus avoid the probable charges of holding him against his will which would appear as soon as he managed to break out. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I accept that complex cases take time, serious time, big chunks of time. I understand that this is entirely voluntary. I'd like to thank the arbitrators for doing a difficult task. I prefer a good decision to a fast one. Thanks. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As would we all. But Arbitrators historically (perhaps like everyone) are quite willing to grant themselves time extensions, very reluctant to do so for parties. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

• Arbcom needs to handle itself like American governmental institutions do under open meeting laws. Deliberate in open unless specific information requires the equivalent of an "executive session" from which the public is barred (email for this). Instead we have a star chamber which few, if any, Wikipedians trust to do the right thing for the right reasons. If you Arbs feel like you are getting swamped with hundreds of emails, stop making email the primary means of communication and presentation of evidence. You have done this to yourselves. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Give me the money to hire council, a communications director, a researcher, and part time pay for all of us and then you might see cases happen on schedule. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, here's what's wrong with TPP

It is taking a while for the text to leak -- apparently Congress is now supposed to pass the treaty before the public is allowed to see what it is! -- but this source describes what TPP will do for Wikipedia:

Among the provisions in the chapter (which may or may not be the most recent version) are rules that say that each country in the agreement has the authority to compel anyone accused of violating intellectual property law to provide “relevant information [...] that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls” as provided for in that country’s own laws.

The rules also state that every country has the authority to immediately give the name and address of anyone importing detained goods to whoever owns the intellectual property.

That information can be very broad, too: “Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement,” the document continues, “and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.”

Now here's an example of what I take that to mean. Suppose someone edited the Lee Kwan Yew with an unflattering quote. Well, under this treaty, Yew's representative could say the quote is a copyright infringement. Even if it were only five words, what court would rule against him? Note that the treaty allows safe harbor for scholarship, but so far as I know none of the non rights holder rights are actually mandatory on a country. So Wikipedia would be legally bound, in the U.S., to turn over everything it knew about that editor to the Singaporeans based on their process. If the editor happened to be from that country, or a country willing to do a favor, then next time he had to go back to renew a visa, he'd be in very deep trouble.

So the result is simple: he doesn't do that quote; he doesn't do editing unless it is favorable, knowing that even if he is in the U.S. or any other country caught up in this web of treaties (of which TPP is only one) he has no safe haven. And the same is true for these other countries and their various big shots. And so the editors who are honest in the game will mostly be the foreigners limited to English-language sources, in a state of ongoing conflict with people who should know the most about the topic who they'll deride as shills. The result might be that the Americans ride on guns blazing and enforce an imperial neutrality on the topic that is in line with whatever the U.S. media is saying. Or it might be that the article is tenderly obsequious to the foreign government. But what it won't be is a neutral article written by a broad pool of volunteers who feel safe to write freely and neutrally. Wnt (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

AIUI, from what you have posted, if the US passed a law enabling them to require the information, they would be permitted to pass that information to Singapore. This effectively says nothing.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

TPP - The Biggest Threat to the Internet You've Probably Never Heard Of

Alright, you never know the truth until you read the primary source. Unless the primary source is in legalese, in which case you still are taking your chances. Unfortunately, I was trying to get data through a hotspot that was apparently censoring Wikileaks, or something... anyway, I found the original text here. The problem is, I'm not quite clear on what "without prejudice" actually means, or whether demanding a judicial system has the authority to turn over information actually means prohibiting any laws that would prevent them from turning over information, etc. Wikileaks has a lot of expert commentary here, but I don't think any of it touches on this.

In any case, whether I'm right or wrong, we need the WMF lawyers to read this over now if we are going to have an impact. If we wait until the bill is passed and they're allowed to read an official version, what can they advise us to do about it? Wnt (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The EFF summary is probably pretty good, they employ more lawyers than Eric Corbett has featured articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough:Great suggestion, I've added a video from the EFF, above. — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, this does not look good

Lots of good info at What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)? by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. This looks like it's got quite a lot of problems that pertain directly to both the Internet and Wikipedia.

Per the EFF primer: "Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of expression, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate."

— Cirt (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again Question

Hi Jimbo Wales, I have a question wherefore Susanna Mkrtchyan becomes Wikipedian of year? --Vadgt (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the Wikimedia Foundation blog post.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say that she was named "Wikipedian of the Year", though. It says the name of the winner of that award was not announced. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to say that 6AND5 messaged to Susanna Mkrtchyan to resolve conflict in Armenian Wikipedia, but he not answered [18] (if need I can translate this message). And also on Armenian Wikipedia in same text[19]. --Vadgt (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if any of them are members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If they are, I hope they don't let them have any sharp objects. Crayons would be good. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)