Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:17, 10 September 2013

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He is a WMF Board of Trustee (founders seat), and the three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

the shoe has fallen

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages treats people in a random harmful way not based on evidence, that says that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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).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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, then how do we replicate that crucial part of the jury-selection process? MastCell  01:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I never suggested that the present-day American jury system could or should be replicated within Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

Anythingyouwant, I don't want to sound discourteous, but I think your knowledge of European legal history is rather scant if you compare Wikpedia's current system to the one in force in France during the revolution: on Misplaced Pages, all Arbs are elected by the community and their term in limited: we have to be re-elected every two years if we want to keep our seat. It's not like we're a bunch of dictators who have, somehow, seized power while nobody was looking. Salvio 12:17, 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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)

• I mostly agree with MastCell on this. Some of the topic bans appear based on little and marginal evidence, but it's still better than the omnibus decision they had considered earlier. At least with individual evidence being listed, the editors have more of a chance at appealing after the next ArbCom is elected. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:51, 10 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages 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 - Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Really? Call me crazy, but I'd add another distinction: is the information true? Take FonGenie's "easy-to-implement features" for instance. Are they "easy as pie" or "easy as falling off a log"? There's a big difference and I'd like to see a peer-reviewed scientific study proving which it is. Heck, maybe they're even "easy as 1-2-3" or "so easy a cavemen can do it"; there are a lot of subtle distinctions here and I think some refs to qualified professional easyologists would be in order. Of course, these details may not be of interest to the general reader. The general reader probably only needs to know if operators are standing by and if she should act now. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 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)

Except this was a high-profile event with Zimmerman as the center, so his reputation is not aided by making his page a redirect to that event. He would be better served by a bio that does not treat him as an object in a controversy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:17, 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)

A few more days. Baby at home. :-) I'm gong to Mexico tomorrow and will have a significant period of uninterrupted work from my hotel room there so I expect to catch up on several things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 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)

Why is Barret Brown a red link, as of this moment? At this time there is an article about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/Barrett_Brown . --Brown shoe yuptidoo (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's because you've spelt the name wrong: there are two Ts in "Barrett", not one. The correct link is Barrett Brown. If you type this into the search engine you should have no issues finding the article. — Richard BB 09:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP articles where subject has requested deletion

Hey, Jimbo, this is apropos of nothing in particular; I'm just curious to see what your opinion is. The context of the specific situation here is here, but I'm more interested in the general question: for someone of marginal notability (a term that is admittedly poorly-defined) who has requested deletion of their BLP, should we honor their request and delete the article, disregard their request entirely, or somewhere in between? I generally think that we should when the request is not unreasonable (Larry Ellison, to pick a random notable person, asking for his bio to be deleted is probably not going to fly), and particularly when the bio is relatively negative in tone, as is the case here, IMO. I suppose there's a question in this particular case of how notable the subject really is; I don't think a failed bid for a Senate seat makes one automatically notable enough to require an article, but I guess reasonable people can differ about that. I'm more interested in the general question of how much we should take a subject's request for deletion into account. Do you have any thoughts on the subject? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's long been practice that a BLP of a marginally notable person with no or skimpy sources should be deleted, particularly when everything unsourced is removed (and that's something that definitely should be done in cases of the subject asking for the removal of the article). I've done a few of these (typically 'cos my phone number is out there as a Misplaced Pages contact) - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)