Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/MyWikiBiz

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: Yes, fairly thoroughly, about 2 weeks ago

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Personal attack

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: See the links above. I have tried to engage in civil discussions across the Wikipedia talk space.  Whenever I have pointed out the inconsistencies in what Jimmy Wales is doing, several people come to my support, then I get blocked.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Because I am currently blocked by Jimmy Wales, I don't have the means to defend my position any more. I would like an advocate, ideally, to get my block lifted, and to push my case to ArbCom, because this is now the second time Jimmy Wales has personally blocked MyWikiBiz, without the endorsement of the admin community.

Summary:
MyWikiBiz.com set up a business model where it would author NPOV articles for companies currently missing from Wikipedia, and post these articles to the mainspace. Jimmy Wales thought that this was unethical, so he blocked the MyWikiBiz account before even discussing the matter with MyWikiBiz. After a discussion, Wales created what we call the "Jimbo Concordat", where MyWikiBiz would be free (some might even say "encouraged" to write NPOV articles for pay, post them on a GFDL section on MyWikiBiz.com's OWN WEBSITE, then if independent, unpaid editors choose to scrape that content over to Wikipedia, so much the better. This is exactly what happened with the Arch Coal article, but Jimmy Wales stepped in and deleted the article, calling it "a travesty of NPOV".  This has left other editors, in the actual words of one, "completely flummoxed", because the original article/stub was actually quite respectable.  It is clear to MyWikiBiz that Jimmy Wales is allowing his anger to introduce legal threats, out-of-procedure blocks, out-of-procedure deletes, and a clear anti-business POV.  (He thinks that an article about Arch Coal cannot be neutral unless it contains a "criticisms" section. How biased is that?) This is a perfect opportunity to examine whether or not Jimmy Wales is micromanaging this situation to the detriment of the Wikipedia community, or not. Because of my block, I would appreciate being informed of updates at thekohser  gmail com.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * None assigned.

Due to the tricky nature of this particular case, I ask that Advocates hold off on taking it until we've had a chance to discuss things to field it effectively. This is not an endorsement or proclaimation of disdain towards this case, but a measure to ensure that it is dealt with properly and appropriately. אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  00:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notes for Other Advocates:
 * Hmm - the user listed has been blocked for 30 years, originally indefinately by Jimbo per WP:COI. As Jimbo's decision is over-ruling in everything, and he is above ArbCom, I don't see much that we can do anyway.  M a rtinp23 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed per December 2006 meeting, where we concluded that we have no power to try to over-rule any of Jimbo's decisions. If you wish to persue the matter, see WP:RFC, though this has become a policy issue. Mart inp23  18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)