Talk:Ross Mirkarimi

Sexual Orientation Unclear
I don't think Mr. Mirkarimi has ever said publically he identifies as gay. As far as I know, the only two openly gay members of the S.F. County Board are Bevan Dufty and Tom Ammiano. Mirkarimi seems to be a vocal supporter of human rights for homosexuals, but that's quite different from being classified in the 'gay and lesbian people' list. Also, membership in the Harvey Milk Democratic Club doesn't make one gay, anymore than membership in NOW makes one a woman. It's just as likely those associations are political moves on his part.

Until there's documented proof he holds that identity, I think he shouldn't be included in that category. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. (Unsigned)


 * Agreed. There are no Google links suggesting he's gay, apart from membership of Harvey Milk. His official biographies (both on his campaign website and the official city of SF website) make no mention of his sexual orientation. Lincolnite 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: Where was he born? Who are his parents?

A bit friendly?
I went through and cleaned up the Supervisor section quite a bit - parts it were in pretty rough English, and then a lot of it was either untrue, or at least unsourced in its praise of Mr Mirkarimi. I've got no beef with the man, but comparing the referenced sources with the article's claims left a lot of things unclear. My two cents is that someone rather close to Mr Mirkarimi has been doing some work on the article. While that's fine, I would remind my fellow editors that if there aren't sources available, we should be cautious in our claims, and that language like "led the charge" when the source only justifies saying things like "was involved" is not necessarily appropriate. Jordanp (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Supervisor Mirkarimi is in a domestic partnership with Evelyn Nieves, a reporter for AP. He's very quiet about it, and has stated several times in the media that he is "single" and lives only with a rescue dog and cat. This is really odd, if you ask me, but nontheless, he has been in this relationship and living with his partner, Evelyn, for at least 10 years. Domestic partnerships can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.229.206 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Naval Reserves
Mirkarimi's campaign for sheriff web site says he was in the Naval Reserves. This ought to be in the article. Can anyone verify it? Chisme (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

date of marriage?
wondering how long this fighting couple has been married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

arrangement of sections.
It is usual practice to put biography and work/achievements before the personal life part. Why is personal life first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.162.131 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In practice, many articles have an "Early life" section first, discussing the individual's heritage and formative years, then have a "Personal life" section describing personal developments of greater recency after career-related sections. Perhaps that "Personal life" section should be split accordingly. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight
Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The domestic violence section has expanded beyond its due weight, and needs to be pared. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Mirkarimi's domestic abuse allegations made national and international headlines, and continues to make them. The only other time this obscure San Francisco politician made the national news was when, as a supervisor, he passed legislation banning plastic bags in SF. Now he is embroiled in a fascinating dilemma: the sheriff of a major city grabs his wife's arm, the case is blown out of proportion, he does time (1 day) in the jail he supervises as sheriff, he is relieved of his duty, and he is brought before the city's ethics commission. This fascinating story has been covered in New York, London, and Tokyo newspapers. Anyhow, whether you think a biographical article on Wikipedia should devote itself mostly to what makes the subject notorious or should devote itself to trivialities, please consider restoring the bit about Mirkarimi being suspended to the first paragraph, since he is no longer sheriff, and likewise consider restoring the paragraph in which he describes his ordeal in his own words. I think the subject himself deserves a say in this matter. Chisme (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment? I take it then, I can make the changes I suggest? Chisme (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu. Mirkarimi's ban on plastic bags also made national and international headlines but there is not an over-the-top blow by blow account of every allegation on both sides.  Additionally, I'm not sure why his support of marijuana legalization but not his ban on plastic bags, which was internationally recognized, is in the opening paragraph. GreenIn2010 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * His support for the plastic bag ban was awesome. But it didn't generate as much news because, well, it didn't roll out over several months like this new thing is doing and continues to do. Cheers. Chisme (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This page still has the problem of undue weight given to the domestic violence allegation. The page as a whole is 20kb, and the domestic violence section is almost half (9800b). I think parts that I removed have been readded, with no explanations given, and the tag has been wrongfully removed from the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I will determine whether or not the tag should stay up. After all, the tag says "An editor has expressed a concern...". With some of the unnecessary detail and excessive quotes that add nothing, I still think this page suffers from undue weight, though we've made progress in cutting it down. This accusation is a major BLP issue that needs to be handled carefully. Just because I haven't gotten around to re-reading the article in full over the weekend doesn't mean undue weight is resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rostam Mirkarimi?
Is Mirkarimi's birth name Rostam? The Iranian-American press refers to him by that name. 71.139.13.130 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is Rostam. I'll update accordingly. Chisme (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ivory Madison
This is the same woman who wrote issues of the Huntress comic book. Its come out in a KTVU news story this day, presumably will get print coverage. he claims that Madisons charges against him are fiction, driven by her characters style of justice.(mercurywoodrose)99.39.148.212 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes by Muboshgu
User Muboshgu appears to be adding numerous quotations to favor the mayor while removing similar quotations by Mirkarimi. Muboshgu has also removed the reference to the fact that the Ethics Commission received a bomb threat which caused the hearings to be disrupted and the room cleared and which has been a major event in the proceedings. I see this as biased and POV editing. What is the basis for not reporting a bomb threat during the hearings? Irrelevant? Why did the news media report it? Unfortunately it raised many questions about the potential for the mayor to have perjured himself, which is important to the mayor's case against Mirkarimi -- if the Mayor ends up discredited, that will influence the case. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding anything. I'm trying to cut this down, because the whole domestic violence section is undue weight. A bomb threat to the proceedings is irrelevant to the man. Just because the news media reports it doesn't mean we repeat it. What is it's specific relevance to Mirkarimi? What does the bomb threat have to do with Lee possibly perjuring himself? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A bomb threat is irrelevant to a person in a public building in which it happens? A bomb threat means someone could have been killed -- and the other 900 people, who were in the building -- including Mikarimi and the Mayor of the San Francisco. This hardly seems minor.  News media reported it because 1) it caused a major and unprecedented disruption in the hearings in which Ed Lee left the room in the middle of his questioning by a Mirkarimi attorney, 2) had a bomb gone off it would be a historic and horrific event, 3) bomb threats are a federal offense and should the source of this threat be exposed, another major news event would emerge, the least of which would be the intent of the threat.  Each of these points could impact the final ruling of the Commission as well as the credibility of the Mayor's case.  If you are going to include the fact that hearings are happening, and details about them, this is a key detail to include.  If you need to edit it down, fine, but it should not be totally removed. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "What does the bomb threat have to do with Lee possibly perjuring himself?" Read the news articles and the descriptions by people who were there -- the decision to clear the room came immediately following the question put to Ed Lee of whether he consulted with any of the city supervisors about his decision to use the Ethics Commission to investigate Mirkarimi, and he said no.  Others claim that he consulted Sup. Olague.  If she were admit that, or if proof emerged, that would be perjury.  Perjury is a felony.  Several newspapers are commenting on the perjury, including SF Chron and SF Examiner.  Read the articles, there is a lot going on which is historical. GreenIn2010 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)  Articles: | here, | here, and | here.
 * Yes, being in a building when a bomb threat is called in is not particularly relevant. If a bomb were to go off, that would be huge news, but obviously that didn't happen. If the bomb threat specifically pertains to Mirkarimi, that's a different story. But there's no proof of that. The sources you provided there don't say anything of the sort. Suggesting that the bomb threat was called in simply to get Lee off the hot seat is synthesis. Possible perjury is worth mentioning. A bomb threat, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Muboshgu did a pretty good job of whittling down the article. He took out some flavorful quotes, but other than that, I approve his/her edits. (I prefer having people speak in their own words to the "just the facts ma'am" approach). The bomb threat doesn't belong. Chisme (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This was a special type of bomb threat -- the mayor was removed from the room in which he was testifying (some report he went into his office on another floor) but no one else in the building was evacuated. GreenIn2010 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Special type of bomb threat"? Special how? It sounds like you're insinuating something. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chisme. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not insinuating -- I'm asking how many bomb threats have you ever known of where only one person was removed from the threatened area? That basically says that there was no bomb threat, but they took the mayor away anyway, and no one else.  That response was unprecedented and bizarre. GreenIn2010 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco Ethics Commission Hearings
Why is the majority of this section devoted to Mayor Ed Lee's alleged "perjury." This should describe the hearings as they relate to the subject. I put some Mirkarimi quotes in this section. I also put in a counterbalance to the perjury in charge. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I took the quotes out. The first problem with this article is the reliance on these quotes. Just say what happened without using the individual's exact words. That being said, the Lee "perjury" thing does seem to be getting undue weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the quotes were removed. Shouldn't the subject of the article be able to speak in his or her own words? If a Wiki editor "just says what happened," as you suggest he or she do, that editor is interpreting actions and words. Letting the subject speak provides better, unfiltered information. On another topic, I agree, Lee's "perjury" has way too much weight. The hearing is about Mirkarimi, not Lee. I'm editing down the perjury stuff. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight tag removal
When will the tag be removed? The editor who put it there says he doesn't have the time to look to see if there is still undue weight, but won't allow it to be removed. This is a concern. The vast majority of the text originally on the page was removed already and the event itself is ongoing. Given that the tag cannot be removed, I will continue to add text as events arise. There is no incentive to removing text when the tag will remain, regardless of efforts to cut down the length. GreenIn2010 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the opinion of one of the nation's most prominent legal entities, the National Lawyers Guild, is considered "meaningless" when an elected official is suspended by a mayor. That suggests that the Guild is a meaningless organization. GreenIn2010 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Meaningless" is a bit strong, I'll admit. Why is it important enough to include? Do they have any input or influence? If not, I'm inclined to say it shouldn't be included because of the bloat of the section as is. Adding their opinion might open the door to other low importance opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NLG is important in a city like SF, which is historically very progressive, so their opinion will carry weight with the Supervisors, whom the decision will ultimately come down to. If they ignore the opinion, they will be seen as defying the most popular progressive legal organization in the Bay Area.  I removed the blockquotes so it is less bloated.GreenIn2010 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I removed the paragraph about Mayor Ed Lee supposedly committing perjury. If this belongs anywhere, it's in Ed Lee's article. It appears that the perjury business was a strategy on the part of Mirkarimi's lawyers to discredit Lee. Neither the D.A. or the Ethics committee members have shown any interest in pursuing it. We seem to be committed to cutting the Ethics hearing part of the Mirkarimi article down. In that spirit, this paragraph should be removed, as it pertains mostly to Lee, not to Mirkarimi. If it does turn out Lee is accused of perjury, we can put it back in. Chisme (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I support your removal of it. Especially as there are no perjury charges, it's WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support the removal of it, mainly because regardless of whether it was or was not strategy, it changed the course of the case. I will attempt a smaller version of the paragraph. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that it changed the course of he case is your own. Furthermore, this isn't about Ed Lee -- it's about Mirkarimi. Again, as I said earlier, if there is merit to these charges of Lee committing perjury, we can include it. But as of now it's just a charge that the Mirkarimi defense floated, and it is by no means the most important aspect of the Ethics Hearings. For that reason, it has to go, respectfully. Chisme (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the idea that it changed the course has been described in numerous press article in the local media. The SF Chron story titled, "Perjury accusation against mayor could be pivotal" states:


 * "'This is a bombshell, and it really could bust open the hearing,' said Peter Keane, a professor and dean emeritus at Golden Gate University Law School and a former member of the Police Commission. 'If the mayor lied on a material question, that goes to his credibility' in asserting that he decided 'in a good-faith way' to get rid of Mirkarimi."


 * The SF Examiner wrote an OpEd titled Mayor Lee’s testimony raises questions, begs investigation and stated:


 * "'Serious accusations that the mayor may have stated something under oath that was not truthful — particularly in a hearing about whether to remove another elected official for official misconduct — cannot be wished away as merely politics. The San Francisco Examiner believes the Ethics Commission should immediately call for public testimony from anyone who may have answers about what the mayor did, what he said and what actions were contemplated."
 * GreenIn2010 (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you also have this article from today, "Ed Lee perjury probe interest wanes." Look, I don't want to get in a pissing match with you, but it's obvious that this is a subtopic pertaining to Lee, not a subject for a Mirkarimi article, and futhermore, I am in no way convinced that the "case" as you call it (it's a hearing, not a case) was influenced by this perjury accusation. I agree with Muboshgu. Let's remove this paragraph. Chisme (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first thing the article says is "Even as new evidence emerged Monday to corroborate a former city official’s suggestion that Mayor Ed Lee may have committed perjury before The City’s Ethics Commission" . . . Just because the City officials under Ed Lee don't want to investigate doesn't mean it is not perjury. Almost any City is going to try to promote a case for 'interest waning' in whether their Mayor lied or not -- it would be strange if they didn't -- but the events that led to the accusations occurred in the middle of the hearings on Ross Mirkarimi, disrupted them such that people actually had to leave the Commission chambers, and changed the course of public discourse on the trial for the public. It's not a large paragraph or totally offbase -- these are a few sentences about an important aspect of what happened in the case. GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see alot of supposition in that statement. The accusation of perjury does seem to be an unfounded accusation used as a tactic by Mirkarimi's lawyers. We shouldn't include it, unless there is an investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Peskin has now released the text message from Walter Wong, the person whom Lee asked to offer Mirkarimi a job via Peskin, which Lee denied under oath. Evidence like text messages implicating the Mayor are not creations of Mirkarimi's lawyers, but are information being put out by individuals on their own.  As the article points out, "Two San Francisco institutions agree that perjury allegations regarding Lee’s June 29 statements at suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s official misconduct hearing should be taken seriously."  The fact that they will not investigate what they say are serious allegations suggests that no one wants to get involved, not that perjury did not happen or is not relevant. GreenIn2010 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, the text message read "Our friend want me to tell you, no matter what outcome with your negotiations, he is appreciate your help." Pretty cryptic, no? And more importantly, the San Francisco D.A. said today that no perjury investigation will be made against Mayor Lee. His spokesperson said, "“Based on the available information, there is no basis for commencing a criminal investigation." The D.A. is better able than you or I to determine whether he committed perjury, notwithstanding your assertion that "no one wants to get involved." This Mayor commits perjury stuff definitely doesn't belong in the article. Chisme (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to weigh this down with unneeded stuff
Let's not weight this down with weird drama from Mirkrimi's hearing, as follows:
 * And during the public comment period of the final Ethics Commission hearing in August, a blonde woman introduced herself as "Jocelyn" and also claimed to be an ex-girlfriend whom Mirkarimi had physically abused, but when probed by the media afterward, admitted that she had lied and was never a former girlfriend of Mirkarimi.

This was an isolated, strange incident and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisme (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Again, I ask, why the blond woman? This is a minor incident at a public hearing. The other woman testified under oath. She belongs. The "blond woman," whose name is not known and who did not give her name, doesn't belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisme (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought it was interesting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenIn2010 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias
We have kept all direct quotes out of this article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and including those pro-Mirkarimi quotes serves only the purpose of furthering Mirkarimi's defense. Furthermore, giving the profession of Mirkarimi's ex-girlfriend to me smacks of an attempt to give her comments more weight than they deserve. That she is a journalist is of no relevance to Mirkarimi's case, only that she is his ex-girlfriend is relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The critical ex gets a quote but the supportive one does not? Or are you now going to remove the detailed quote of the critical ex that's been up there for months?  GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's a quote from a critical ex, then I didn't notice it and I'll pull it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating that you only notice and must remove what is supportive, and within minutes, but never noticed things up there for MONTHS. I've already removed it. That was the ex that said "he bruised my arm".  How original.  The Chron published that but refused to publish the piece by Evelyn Nieves as an OpEd, and instead published 2 pieces attacking him today.  How's that for "journalism", just par for the course as far as the Chron goes.  So Debra Saunders, the conservative columnist supportive of Ross at the Chron, republished it on her own blog.  That's the level that this case is at.  That's why you "not noticing" critical comments but needing to edit down each and every supportive comment, seems also, just par for the course. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Domestic Violence material in lede
I believe the paragraph about the domestic violence trial belongs in the lede. It made national news when it occurred. It's what he's chiefly known for. It's been there for some time. Chisme (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so too, but the version that's there now is a little too blow-by-blow for the lead, which should be in a summary style. In my opinion it's too long as well, giving the incident undue weight. How about cutting it back in length and amount of detail? Here's my suggestion for a new wording:

-- Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I trimmed it as per your suggestion. I also took out the California Coastal Commission, which wasn't important enough to put in the lede. Chisme (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your version is good. I will watch-list for a while and help keep an eye on things. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Did not co-found Green Pary
Ross did NOT co-found the Green Party of California, he was not even present in the February 1991 GPCA convention at Cal State Sacramento when Kent Smith and Roger Picklum proposed making the California green movement into a formal party, and it was Kent and Roger who then went on to file the petition with the California Elections Division to be registered as "The Green Party" Any assertion that Ross had anything to do with this is inaccurate and should be removed.Pearl2525 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Green Focus, the newspaper of the CA Green Party, "In 1990 he (Mirkarimi) helped co-found the Green Party of California and played a major role in the successful 1990-1992 ballot drive..." Chisme (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the info Chisme
Check the info Chisme, you're restoring false information, inaccurate information and blatant pov slanted phrases designed only to smear this living person, cut it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyHunny (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you point out anything specific that you feel is false/inaccurate, or blatant POV? I think the sentence "Waves of support for both suspending him from, and keeping him in office were noted in nearly daily coverage" is a massive POV violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see any false or inaccurate information or POV phrases, MoneyHunny. These are all sourced. Why move biographical information into the introductory paragraph? This is why I reverted your edits which, moreover, obscure the work of the many editors who came before you. Chisme (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple of examples, some I learned from reading the full article was the he was suspended after he pled guilty not before as was previously stated. The first section is suppose to be a total summary of the rest, a FULL picture of a human being not a smear job recounting dismissed charges which were all disputed and dropped.

Also the 2015 re-election campaign sentence? TOTALLY WRONG with pov source, presented as slander! I corrected that. This guy made a mistake, he didn't kick puppies or kill someone. Why are we trying to hang him for one incident years ago and dismiss his lifetime of changing politics in California?

And everyone's work is changed by better and new information, that's the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyHunny (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 31, 2014‎
 * The idea is that collaboration can make for a better product, yes. But, per WP:BRD, you have to discuss these changes, especially since the version you found came about through long discussions that you can see on this talk page. Nobody's trying to "hang him" for what happened. Though he didn't "kick puppies or kill someone", he was charged with beating his wife, and especially for a Sheriff, that's serious.
 * I have an issue with how you remove the actual initial charges. They were dismissed, but in the historical context of his career, it's notable that those were the initial charges. As to when he was suspended, you're right that he was suspended after the plea. The way it was written is not clear on that, so that should be changed. I will look into the 2015 reelection campaign sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That sure sounds like your editorializing. News sources also pointed out that the entire three-ring circus was orchestrated for political leverage against him and others associated with him. We seem to gloss over developments since then like how he and his wife are perfectly happy and his ongoing work. Instead we've hung this badge of shame to weigh the entire biography down. It's debatable how notable those initial charges are but they certainly don't need to be advertised as the introduction to him, oh by the way he beats his wife ... no. All those apparently hyper-notable and serious charges were so serious that they were dropped? Please. Report in the article summary only what he was found guilty on and the it was part of a plea bargain. And include his own opinion on this farcical attack on his character. "Runaway train of innuendo" is exactly what it appeared to be. Tabloidy is also accurate. It was a low point in SF politics. MoneyHunny — Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia strives to be objective. Chisme (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * News sources editorialize. We do not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should be utilizing what news sources are saying now about the incident rather than leaning on what was said 2-3 years ago. Pinning the charges rather than what he was actually found guilty of is a bad editorial decision on Wikipedia's part. The only ones trying to claim he is a wife-beater now is people who are certainly not objective or news sources. MoneyHunny (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can acknowledge that many people feel differently about this than you? I think Muboshgu came up with a good compromise. Please respect it. Chisme (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as many people, and more importantly reputable sources also counter the rather hatchet job being done to Ross. Perhaps more people should be looking at the changes that were made that seem incredibly tabloid, and look to having a better written, more accurate, and less POV article.MoneyHunny (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I see now this information was added recently. Perhaps the "bold" addition made just before I came along needs to be relooked at, I wonder what else I'll find. MoneyHunny (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

MoneyHunny has been banned for being a sockpuppet. Accordingly, I have rolled back this article to remove his/her edits. Chisme (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well whaddyaknow... – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Community organizations
Community organizations should not be at the bottom like that. He is a community organizer, his community affiliations are not the last thing people should know about. MoneyHunny — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyHunny (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Ross Mirkarimi
Cyberbot II has detected links on Ross Mirkarimi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.change.org/petitions/mayor-of-san-francisco-reinstate-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-to-his-elected-office
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ross Mirkarimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707002423/http://www.rossmirkarimi.com:80/news to http://www.rossmirkarimi.com/news

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ross Mirkarimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050206224741/http://www.sfgov.org:80/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=29087 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=29087

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "Gun Control" section
I removed the following which appeared under the heading "Gun Control": "As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Mirkarimi fought against pro-gun advocates who were challenging San Francisco's attempt to further tighten gun control laws.[28] This issue has caused many pro-gun advocates to accuse Mirkarimi of hypocrisy, when it was reported that he himself was a gun owner even before he was elected Sheriff. He has since had to surrender his firearms due to the pending domestic violence allegations." I removed it because it implies that owning a gun and favoring gun control laws is hypocritical. Respectfully, I believe this isn't the case. Someone may own a gun and still favor stricter gun control laws. Furthermore, the words "has caused many pro-gun advocates to accuse Mirkarimi of hypocrisy" is a)unproven, because what constitutes "many" in this instance can't be properly defined, and b)because the words qualify as weasel words. Chisme (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor individual
Why is there so much expended on this minor individual? Articles for major scientists, politicians and military figures are much shorter. The artice should be 1/10 the size, and most of the Talk is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andarin (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , or maybe those other articles should be 10x the size, instead of cutting 90% of this one? Maybe you should work to expand those short articles rather than comment without any specifics that this one is too long? If you see something specific from the article that should be cut, say so. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)