Talk:MyWikiBiz

Potential conflict of interest declaration

Mr. Kohs has noted in an off-wiki thread that since money has changed hands between us, a potential conflict of interest exists. I hereby publicly announce my regret that his skills of football prognostication are inferior to my own and additionally make note of my intention to liberate him of further $5 bills as the 2014 college football season runs its course. I assure Wikipedians that this inevitable fact of nature has no impact upon my alterations of this article's content and hereby invite scrutiny of the edit history to confirm this assessment. Thank you. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

When you cleaned out my "footnote stacking" you left that section vulnerable to claims that the incident wasn't cited in enough sources to merit inclusion. That's OK, but I'll leave a permalink to the prior version here, in case there is a challenge to that section. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. "One fact — one footnote" is a principle I endorse, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Wikimedia conference ban

In June 2014, Kohs was not allowed to present at or attend WikiConference USA 2014, a national Wikimedia conference, despite the assertion in the conference's press release that "WikiConference USA is open to all participants, regardless of previous level of involvement with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects."

The above quoted text seems to have an accusatory tone, as if claiming that banning a person who is an abusive sockmaster from attending a Wikimedia conference is hypocritical in some way. I'm not sure how to fix it, or if it is actually a problem, so I'm leaving an NPOV tag on the section for someone else to take a look. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the press release didn't say that persons accused of sockpuppetry were not invited to attend, did it? Are you implying that's the reason he wasn't allowed to attend? We need a reliable source to say that. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Proposed change

Could interested editors please consider, and comment on, a proposed change we received from Greg via email. Because he has a conflict of interest he is not permitted in this circumstance to edit the article, and due to his account being blocked he is unable to post this on the talk page himself. Regardless of these facts, his proposed change deserves consideration in forming a consensus either to support or oppose. I am posting this suggested change on his behalf and with his expressed permission.

EMAIL START

I am writing to express concern that Wikipedia's article about MyWikiBiz currently includes the line:

As of September 2012, the MyWikiBiz directory contained over 80,000 pages of content, much of which was link spamming.[3]

It is now March 2015, and as the owner of MyWikiBiz.com, I was very concerned that my site had become a haven for link spamming -- over 220,000 pages, the majority of which were garbage. In February 2014, I shut down the site, hired a freelance Mediawiki code developer, and we endeavored to re-design the site so that:

• Over 150,000 pages of spammy content were removed.
• New users could no longer just create a free account and begin publishing whatever they wished.
• Only the most thoughtfully productive "legacy" user accounts were maintained -- the rest were blocked.

We re-opened the site, and it is now stable, has virtually zero new link spamming going on, and we continue to praise and promote the useful content being generated by users (for example: mywikibiz.com/Directory:BRL_Test ; mywikibiz.com/Directory:Korcula_History_2 ; mywikibiz.com/Directory:Logic_Museum/William_of_Ockham )

EMAIL END

Having reviewed the sentence in question, the fact is referenced ([3]) to the MyWikiBiz home page only, which means that there are no conflicting references in this case.

Thanks in advance for everyone's consideration.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to go through this article and remove all the sourcing to his website and press releases. I am not in favor of letting this article subject or any article subject decide that it's not OK to have poorly sourced material in one paragraph but it's OK in another, because it makes him look better. Coretheapple (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Any removals along those lines is definitely within your pejorative to propose, and to contribute in forming a consensus. Given, currently, the sentence that utilises reference 3 does not state what is at the reference, and given there's been no objection here to removing it over the past 7 days since I posted on this talk page, I have removed that sentence. Regards, Daniel (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I think the paragraph that he wants removed should stay there, as it is relevant and, as you know, a good portion of this article is already sourced to the subject of the article. We don't want to be selective, and just include what the subject of the article wants. I think you mean "prerogative" not "pejorative" by the way. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I did too. The joys of editing on a "smart"phone! Daniel (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Core has the right idea here and I'm in agreement with him/her. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I also agree with the changes Core has made. Jusdafax 16:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: @Gandydancer: Your comments are of course appreciated but I was wondering if you might consider making them in the RfC below? Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I am heretofore uninvolved in this article and have just removed the audio file as blatant and unencyclopedic puffery. Let's mitigate the obviously absurd material. I'll be happy to comment presently. Jusdafax 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

in the 40+ edits between the revision here by Daniel and the current version, I am concerned that POV has been introduced. The content is vastly different without any significant talk page discussion.The registered address of the subject was removed, the section headings convey an entirely different message to the reader, balancing information from the subject's point of view has been removed, and the "paid editing" section has been given significant focus under the new heading Conflict with Wikipedia.

The recording that was recommended by another editor has been removed without disussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that you would feel that "POV was introduced" to an article that, prior to my edits, read as if it had been written by the subject. In addition it was wordy and poorly organized, really murky, hard for the reader to figure out just what happened when.

Initially I felt (see my comments above) that the reason for this sorry state of affairs was overreliance on the subject's website. In fact, as I read through the sources, I found that they were very good indeed. I didn't have to add a single one and I believe the only one I removed was a link to a lengthy article in which the only relevant portion was a quote from an AP article already linked. (Oh I also removed something from a Wikimedia mailing list, per WP:SELFPUB, and also because the same information was covered in multiple reliable sources already utilized.)

No, the sourcing was fine. The problem,and the reason this article was so POV, was that the sources simply weren't used! Going through the sources I found that they were blatantly cherry-picked to favor the subject of the article, and anything even remotely unflattering to the subject was simply ignored. For example, the subject of the article was mentioned in a book by Jonathan Zittrain on the Internet. That's a fine book and a fine source. Instead of anyone actually reading this source (it's on Google Books) and using the content for the article, instead it was utilized as a kind of feather in the cap of the subject. What I did was simply utilize the sources that were already footnoted, and I also organized the article chronologically.

As to your specific points, I thought the inclusion of a brief voice sample of the owner was grotesquely WP:UNDUE. He is not a singer or announcer. Hearing the owner's voice adds nothing to the article. So I removed it. Are you suggesting that hearing what the owner of this website sounds like adds any value to the article? As for the "headquarters" of this website, I thought that having the "headquarters" of a website of such limited readership (a hair under 1 million Alexa rank) was strange to say the least. In reviewing the article further I discovered why: the wrong infobox type was used. This is a website, not a "dot.com company." So after I sign off here I am going to substitute the infobox for websites, which this is, and which does not have a line for "headquarters city." (For most websites of this Alexa rank, a more suitable line would be "location of basement/den.")

As for the "paid editing" aspect of this article: surely you must be joking. The only reason this website has received any coverage, and pretty much the entire reliable sourcing relating to MyWikiBiz, relates to paid editing and its conflict with Wikipedia over that. As a matter of fact, one of the newest bits of information just added to this article relates to the subject's attempt to address a Wikipedia conference in a talk called "Confessions of a Paid Editor."

I have absolutely no idea why this article's many flaws haven't been fixed in the past (though I can make an educated guess). Coretheapple (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Article's been turned into a malicious hit piece by this anonymous "coretheapple" person who appears not to have been hugged enough as a child or something. This of course happens thousands of times a day on wikipedia. Carry on.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Like I was saying, I have absolutely no idea why this article's many flaws haven't been fixed in the past, (though I can make an educated guess). Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

we don't need a blp hatchet job here thanks. I rolled your edits back. If you reinstate blp VIPs again or makeover edits without a consensus I will lock the article. This is an admin action not an editorial one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you read my comments above? I thought my edits were pretty good. Of course, I usually feel that way. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Spartaz: neglected to ping you. See above. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

in this section that opinion appears to be in the minority. Perhaps you should read about undue adverse material. this is an article about a website not a place to put every adverse comment you can find about one of the site's owners. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple's comments on the subject of the article indicate a clear COI and they should refrain from editing this article. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice the passage in WP:AGF that exempted this article. Coretheapple (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I again support Core's work and reasoning without exception. Jusdafax 16:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

For a person that just happened to come upon this article and the talk page it is almost impossible to sort through exactly what is going on here. As I continue to try to go through the comments it seems that there have been one or more sock puppets at work, and yet none of their comments have been stricken as one usually finds on other talk pages. Could this be done? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is very difficult to tell what is going on here. There seem to be people who care passionately about this article, however, which does make me suspicious. I don't have have a lot of time to spend here tonight, but I will say that I think removing the audio file is probably a good move if its content was as Coretheapple described it to me. It added nothing but bandwidth. I will also say that when I took the time to go through the edits a few days ago, I found Coretheapple's edits mostly constructive and did not agree with the revert. I don't have time to go through recent changes but here is my reaction to the article as it is: I am not entirely certain I agree with banning this user from Wikipedia, or the conference, and think the reasons for doing so could be better spelled out, as we do in fact have paid editors on Wikipedia. Presumably the objection is to a business doing this on a wholesale basis, I suppose. Did Wikipedia never put out a press release about this? That's my main issue with the article as it stands. I think it is material that his talk was going to be about how to be a paid editor, and that fact should be included. Otherwise... I really don't care about this article nearly as much as some of the other editors here apparently do ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly why there was socking: to turn this talk page into a mess. However, the sock's comments have either been hatted or deleted from the RfC, where the merits of the article are discussed. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on possible BLP issues

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus in favor of the later version. Also, unanimous agreement that User:Herostratus should be shot... however that is beyond the remit of the original discussion. --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Should this article be the preexisting (current) version, a later version or something in-between. If you feel the latter, kindly be specific as to areas of agreement or disagreement.. The question is whether either or both versions have POV/BLP issues, as some feel. The article has recently been reverted back to the preexisting version, so when I say "preexisting version" I mean the current version. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)edited 00:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully encourage you to recuse yourself from this article, Coretheapple, and instead spend your time writing, expanding and improving other articles where you can more readily adhere to the neutral point of view. Personally, off Wikipedia, I disagree with Kohs intensely, and consider him deeply misguided. But I strive constantly to avoid letting my personal feelings affect my editing. I recommend the same NPOV attitude to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no personal feelings about this subject, but I do feel that this article in its current state is not NPOV and has a number of obvious flaws, such as a confusing structure, text that is cherry-picked to exclude material unfavorable to the subject, the wrong infobox (this is not a "dot com company," it is a low-trafficked website) and an audio recording that has no place in the article and is just a sample of the voice of the subject's founder. That's a lot of problems for a short article. Tell me, how did the article get this bad? Do you have a theory? Coretheapple (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

discussion with sock/meatpuppet of banned user, just blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, while Coretheapple says, "I have no personal feelings about this subject", his public statements belie that false posture. Here Coretheapple talks to CorporateM (a marketing/PR professional), snidely referring to Kohs (to King) as "your pal". It does not appear that Kohs is "pals" with CorporateM -- they don't seem to have ever met each other in person, and message board correspondence between the two has actually been tinged with disagreement. And here Coretheapple hectors long-time article writer, Cla68, saying to him, "In this case we have a discussion of whether or not Comcast Business was involved with a particular editor. You chime in aggressively, but don't bother to tell us that you offered $75 for anyone willing to create an article on that very business." In case you don't know, Kohs has been employed for nearly 3 years by Comcast Business, according to his LinkedIn profile, so this shows that Coretheapple is likely specifically targeting Kohs, through his back-handed attack on Cla68 (who never said he had ever been paid a penny by Kohs for anything, much less work about Comcast Business on Wikipedia). And finally, here Coretheapple states his opinion about paid editing on Wikipedia, "Every time I turn over a rock it seems that another form of paid editing crawls out. Every new day brings yet another discovery of the extent to which this practice has corrupted Wikipedia". Of course, MyWikiBiz is a paid editing service, so it's not appropriate for someone who compares the business to a ground-crawling insect and "corrupting", to be acting as an editor on the subject. Indeed, Coretheapple at various points in just that week-long conversation on Wales' Talk page described paid editing with the following terms: "like syphilis" "cynical, selfish abuse" "editors who create advertorials" "their messes" "the crap they write" "an enormous time suck and burden" "demoralizing" It is difficult to swallow now that Coretheapple has "no personal feelings about this subject". If he is so easily able to fabricate such a statement, really none of anything else he has to say here should be taken with much seriousness. We are being trolled, plain and simple. - Set the record right (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I got the ping. user:Set the record right has accurately described my relationship (which is to say we don't really have one) with Kohs, however I think that diff was an example of sarcasm. I don't think (if that argument is actually being made) that Core can reasonably claim to have no strong opinion on the subject. OTOH, he may be able to reasonably argue that he has shown an ability to edit neutrally on subjects he has a strong opinion on. Because BLP explicitly allows article-subjects to participate in discussions about articles on them, I think Kohs should be allowed to participate here, as an exception to his ban. CorporateM (Talk) 15:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I agree that editors with a POV (that should include everyone, if we are honest with ourselves) should be able to edit neutrally. Further, I am NOT opposed to paid editing, but feel (per policy and in the interest of transparency) it should always be disclosed. I agree that Kohs should be allowed to participate on this talk page (using an IP, not creating a sock), per WP:IAR. However (and please correct me if I am wrong), this is not a Biography about him. Rather, it is an article (somewhat puffed up and biased in the current version, somewhat negatively biased in the so-called later version) about his company. I don't think there's a policy exception for that. But, again, in the interest of an accurate, neutral document, I agree Kohs should be able to post here using an IP. I would ask that participants here knock off the bickering (wikilawyer over WP:NPA somewhere else) and discuss factual updates to this article and only this article. No coatracking, no puffery. Thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC) No, Kohs is already participating through a sock, and in the past he has participated actively in other discussions, usually disruptively as he has done here. He was just the subject of an arbitration case over his socking at the Jimbo Wales talk page. Banned means banned. He has plenty of proxies who are only too eager to speak for him and even speak like him as a matter of fact. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Later version. So to get this discussion started, here is why I favor the later version over the preexisting (current) version. (I've also revised the RfC to omit the unnecessary chattiness, which I think is OK as no one has responded yet except me.) In short, I feel that the preexisting version, which is the current version of the article, is incomplete and hopelessly biased in favor of the subject, to the point of being, frankly, ridiculous. I'll take it from the top.

• The infobox and lead: The infobox in the preexisting version is for dot.com companies, and gives its "business headquarters." The later version uses the website infobox and omits the location of the "headquarters." This is not a dot.com company, it is a website, and a very low-trafficked one. Its current Alexa ranking is approximately 947,000. It is not customary to give "headquarters" locations for websites of even larger size, and the website infobox provides no such entry. Even Wikipedia has no "headquarters" listing. Also the lead refers to this website as a "brand," while a less POV term such as "website" would be preferable. The current version is correct, however, in catching a misstatement that the later version didn't catch: the number of pages is 8,980, not "over 70,000."
• Structure. The preexisting version of the article is divided into a "history" and "paid editing" sections that aren't logical distinctions. The website began as a paid editing service, and this website is notable because of that. The later version uses a chronological structure: "Conflict with Wikipedia," which began from day one, and "after the site ban."
• Sources. Ordinarily a short article like this would be expanded by use of material within the footnoted sources, if relevant to the subject. Instead, this article has been kept short by omitting material in those sources that is essential to the article, thereby making this article non-neutral and incomplete by not reflecting the sourcing. Professor Jonathan Zittrain's book is mentioned as a feather in the subject's cap, while the page or so in that book on the MyWikiBiz-Wikipedia conflict, a very good summary description, is ignored, even though it is on Google Books.[1].
• History This section in the preexisting (current) version is one-sided in favor of the subject by cherry-picking facts from sources. The subject's claim that the site was based on the "reward board" was contradicted by the Chronicle of Higher Education article. It states the subject's POV that the site wrote articles in Wikipedia that conformed to Wikipedia policies. But it fails to report that Wikipedia didn't see it that way. The article also fails to point out the background of the pay-per-edit controversy as reflected in the reliable sources. It fails to note that the Chronicle of Higher Education stated, in the voice of the publication, that Wikipedia had ample reason to not accept paid editing services such as the subject of the article. I have little doubt that such a judgment would have been included in the preexisting version if it had been favorable to the subject.
• Paid editing issues. This section in the preexisting (current) version has the same cherry picking of sources as the history section, and it makes a mush of the time frame, which was clear from the AP and CHE articles and Zittrain's book. Also the current version fails to give the background to the paid editing issue. Amazingly, it does not even take a sentence to describe exactly what MyWikiBiz was supposed to do in its agreement with Wales. In fact, this section is so incomplete and one-sided that it states that there was a "compromise" but does not say that the agreement broke down and that the site was banned! It just leaves that hanging. In fact, if you look at the Zittrain book, you can see that Jonathan Zittrain said that Wales believed that his prior agreement had been misrepresented, and that MyWikiBiz had been 'spamming Wikipedia with corporate advertisements rather than 'neutral point of view' articles.'" To make matters worse, it is sourced to a self-published mailing list item, contrary to WP:SELFPUB, when Zittrain and the AP both deal with the same issue.
• Audio file While not containing significant stuff like the above, the article has an audio file that is a sample of the site owner's voice. I don't think it is important to the reader to know what the site owner sounds like, as he is not an announcer or a singer, and the later version omits the audio file. Coretheapple (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I do see stuff that is unfavorable to the company being removed, and apparently well sourced quotes, too (Chronicle of Higher Education). I have actually worked on articles that PR people were guarding, and had wildly different experiences. On the whole, if they declare themselves, I am somewhat ok with the practice. You can genuinely feel that your employer's wikipedia page is incorrect and misrepresents the facts. I have also however had the experience of editing pages where someone was apparently being paid by the hour to make sure that certain things did not make it in, and very wearisome it was. So I also very much understand the concern. Now. There is, for a start, a huge discrepancy in the number of pages supposedly on this site that I would prefer not to have to research, and... this recording. Does he say anything of substance in it? On the whole I am thinking that lfe is probably too short to get too deeply into this, but those are the things I am wondering after a fast skim of the article and talk page. Also, that part about being banned from the conference comes across as a bit of a whine, but is perhaps material; however if you are going to include it you should probably put in Wikipedia's rationale as well. Otherwise you're just wa wa wa that you were treated badly and look they broke their own rules. They surely gave some reason, and if there wasn't one given in a reliable source then I wonder about undue weight.Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Chronicle story was based largely off the Associated Press article written by Brian Bergstein, which remains the most comprehensive and accurate assessment of the early stages of MyWikiBiz, in my opinion. However, as you can see in a comment on the Chronicle piece by Brock Read, Mr. Read never even contacted Kohs before publishing the piece. And either Read or his editor sought to label MyWikiBiz as a "scheme", even though the AP story referred to MyWikiBiz only as "a service". This seems to be another example of how a respected brand like Chronicle of Higher Education can occasionally fall short of the journalistic standards of other publishers (e.g., in this case, the Associated Press, which at least interviewed both Kohs and Wales on the matter). What the Chronicle also seems to have forgotten was that Wales initially gave public support to MyWikiBiz. - Set the record right (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion about O'dwyer's just makes me tired. Increasingly hard to parse the difference between a blog and a publication, and I will say again that it may be time to reconsider that standard. Anyway....that article seems less about the refusal to admit the man than about the refusal to accept the article as a reliable source ;) Elinruby (talk)

The audio file says "Hello My name is Gregory Kohs. I was born in Jackson, Michigan, and I was the founder of MyWikiBiz in 2006." It is 20 seconds long. But I agree, it is 20 seconds too long. And yes, the O'Dwyer's article is a whine. Coretheapple (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The clip is 11 seconds long, not 20 seconds long. That's a simple fact, so it's difficult to see why you'd get it wrong. Maybe you're wrong about a number of other things here? - Set the record right (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Then I second the motion to remove the recording unless someone can enunciate a very fine reason for keeping it. Offhand I cannot imagine what that would be. By the way why is this tagged as BLP? I don't usually swim in those waters, but I was under the impression that the usual concern with a BPL was libel Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You may wish to look at Wikipedia:Voice intro project, launched by User:Pigsonthewing and promoted in the mainstream media. Why would Wikipedia introduce a project, publicize it, then reject a very fitting contribution to that project? Also, the rationale for this article being a BLP issue is the fact that a real person, Gregory Kohs, is documented in detail in the article, and [[Gregory Kohs]] points to this article. - Set the record right (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elinruby: That was alleged about the later version. In fact, per my list above, the current version is problematic and I have tagged appropriately. Any thoughts re the other points in this RfC? Coretheapple (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: If you say so. I am not seeing it, really, though perhaps Kohs may feel otherwise I suppose. And admittedly I usually deal more with NPOV and RS. Is there a source for the name of the paper? Also, saw you took out the Siemens thing and I understand why, but it might not be out of place to do a very brief section on what the current policy actually is and how it differs from Kohs' behavior, because we definitely do have paid editors, after all, and guidelines for them and everything. I am sure it pretty much amounts to the BP PR guy being really careful to get consensus vs wholesale import of sketchy articles, but you don't quite say that. Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I agree with you about the structure, by the way. On my point about paid editors, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RTI_International#rfc_D4D3E0A for a declared marketing professional trying really hard for spin, but doing it right, and relatively pleasantly. Elinruby (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I support something in-between. Caveat - while I do not support User:Thekohser's sock-puppetry, nor his enabling by otherwise well-meaning editors, I have no opinion about the subject of this article (I could care less, but not by much). As others have deemed it notable, then notable it is. It would be nice to see a genuinely neutral version.

• Remove the audio - how did this get included in the first place?
• Move or remove 2nd para of history - this para. doesn't seem to be history of the subject of the article. The 1st sentence is an RS for notability. The 2nd seems unimportant and UNDUE.
• Make history section less promotional - the 2nd version seems to describe the history in a less peacocky way than the 1st version. Why not adopt the 2nd version's History section as is?
• Remove "2014 Wikimedia conference ban" section - while appropriate to an article about User:Thekohser, which this is not, the ban is not about the subject of this article - he was banned, not his business.
• Figure out this edit [2] - User:Thekohser is disputing the change. Besides the sockpuppetry by a banned user issue, he clearly has a COI and should not be editing this article. Can someone explain what should be in the article and why?
• Do not adopt "Conflict with Wikipedia" and "After the site ban" sections of the later version - these are written (even in unintentionally) in a seriously non-neutral way, with a lot of the text begin about other issues and not the subject itself. Some of it is UNDUE. I would include the 3rd paragraph of the later version's "After the site ban" section.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I am commenting here after being alerted to this discussion by RFCBot. No, I don't think the later version has any significant BLP issues. The later version seems to me to be neutrally and factually worded. I have no objections to the earlier version but it isn't as complete as the later version. My recommendation is to go with the later version as the starting point and then start making specific improvements to that depending on their merits. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the later version without reservation, and have already pulled the audio file as noted above. After reading both versions and the admin threat to lock the page I must admit to considerable incredulity. Jusdafax 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the later version Perhaps this talk page does not rise to level of the BP article where it was written, "Just write it up and we'll edit it in", but it comes pretty close. Gandydancer (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support the later version The later version feels more compete, with an explanation of what's happened since the "compromise". Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Just fucken shoot me, OK? Notified of this discussion by an evil robot that lives in the forest. Do not want. My suggestions for this article are 1) delete per WP:IAR on the grounds that its a troll magnet and a time sink of contention with little offsetting benefit since it's an extremely obscure subject, and failing that 2) cut back to a three-sentence stub and just leave it at that, and failing that 3) I proxy my vote to User:Coretheapple and support whatever he says as I trust his instincts. Herostratus (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• The later version is far superior for the reasons stated above. I agree about renaming. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• The later version is my official answer (per CoretheApple), but I really like where Herostratus is going with this. Should this article be up for deletion? petrarchan47คุก 06:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Since there is a clear consensus for the so-called "later version," I've edited the article to include aspects of it to correct the issues in the current version. I removed the headquarters city as trivial, since this is not a bricks-and-mortar business, and not supported by the source. I see nothing objectionable about the aspects of the later version not included, such as the section heads, but left out. While I feel the full later version is more desirable and presents no BLP issues, right now we should be working with something that has a resemblance to reality, reflecting what the sources say, and not the problematic current version. I agree that this article should be deleted, and if not, renamed or merged into another article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done some further tweaking, such as removal of the Heise Online commentary, to bring into adherence with summary style. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You're edits seem to have improved the layout and flow of the article and I am glad to see that the audio was removed. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

section about the conference

The name of the paper is highly material and should not have been removed. Way more material than the whine from o'dwyer's not understanding the (admittedly obsolete) reliable source policy Elinruby (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring regarding templates

Knock it off, everyone. FYI, the geolocation of the IP in question is such that one should not automatically suspect this is an IPSOCK particular banned user (meat puppetry is pretty darn likely, of course, and the IPs last edit summary is pure trolling). Regarding removal of Template:Multiple issues, it is appropriate to discuss on the talk page and come to consensus, not edit war about it. Although I think it was inappropriate for the IP to just remove it, I don't think it is worth edit warring to revert it back, either. Please reach consensus. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well no, Joe, maintenance templates don't require consensus, and if they did there wouldn't be any. If an editor raises a good-faith concern they shouldn't be removed, especially the NPOV template, pending resolution of the NPOV issues. And no, edit summaries of the "your mother wears army boots" variety are not an attempt at resolution. In any event, the maintenance templates are supported by the list that I provided above of the issues here. Aside from childish personal attacks and trolling by the IP and the sock account, there has been no effort to even attempt to deal with them substantively. The IP, yes, is an identified user (though why the IP would want to identify as that particular user is beyond me, given his or her block history for trolling and edit warring). The new account is an obvious sock of a banned user. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't studied the article history too carefully but my hunch is that the sorry state of this article is the result of a kind of off-site WP:OWN situation. I'm still waiting for substantive arguments, exclusive of personal attacks and trolling, from the people controlling/defending/excusing this article. I'll let the trolls and socks (such as the one below) do their thing in the meantime. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The new account also showed that you are one of the least reputable editors to be contributing to this article. You sought to cover that up by hiding the evidence. Really, your behavior here has been shameful. - Set the record right (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, describing the article as being in a "sorry state" is something of an insult to editors like User:Fish and karate, User:Aaronbrick, User:Flowanda, and User:Danski14, who were the most frequent editors of this article until you descended upon it. Are you accusing them of "ownership" of the article, or sockpuppetry, or paid editing? Here's a proposal -- subjects of articles are advised to engage on the Talk page to discuss problems with an article about them. Would you be willing to talk, man to man, with the founder of MyWikiBiz here, so that you two could truly negotiate a consensus version of the article? - Set the record right (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

To the new user - given the combination of your tone and lack of accountability, it is hard to take your comments completely seriously. Would you please use your main account (assuming you are not a banned user)? If you are a banned user, feel free to email me your concerns and I will do my best to assist you. To Cta - I agree removing them without any discussion was wrong. I just don't want to see edit warring over them. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, of course not. In fact, if there is more trolling/edit warring/personal attacks, it really just proves my point re this article being a product of WP:OWN behavior. Ditto the off-wiki hysteria. I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, but I don't think there's any rule against standing by and watching while others disrupt Wikipedia to prove your point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Joe, do you really feel that e-mail "whisper game" communication with you is the most efficient way for someone to object to how Coretheapple has been conducting himself here? What is your e-mail address, anyway? - Set the record right (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was only trying to be helpful and avoid a bad situation where a banned user posts here from an IP and then is immediately blocked per WP:BAN. See my reply to CorporateM, above. I think, per IAR, we should allow commentary by Kohs here on the talk page and would urge that such commentary be allowed and not blocked. I would hope it would be constructive, non-trolling, and factual, focused on the article, and ignoring personalities and personal disputes. Regarding my email, my email is enabled. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple, there was no disruptive arguing before you showed up at this article and began to manipulate it to suit your POV. - Set the record right (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Set the record right has been indefinitely blocked. JoeSperrazza, Kohs can report any factual errors to OTRS. If another sock does show up, any commentary like the above should be automatically reverted. If the comment is actually constructive as you outline, editors can decide how to handle it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Kohs is a gadfly, he delights in causing Sturm und Drang, as do his cronies. WP:RBI and carry on with specific and actionable suggestions to improve the article. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to ignore policy. I would like to think that we, as a community, can edit a very simple article like this on a factual, consensus-driven basis. I believe neither version in front of us for review are terrible (I've seen worse), but neither are examples of our best work. I do think kudos should be given to Cta for attempting a bold rewrite. A revert and then discussion is fair, too. Sock-puppetry, trolling and invective diminish the chance of a good outcome. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Joe was acting in good faith in starting this section, and I appreciate his comments. Still, as indicated by subsequent events, this was a disruptive sock and I would request that this section be hatted. It's remarkable, given the aforementioned sturm und drang, how little of substance is being said by the persons defending this article. Let's try to talk about the text. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, well the editor's stated objective with the account[3] and conduct here seems to suggest their mission is to troll a particular user as oppose to providing the type of meaningful article feedback that could reasonably qualify for special BLP protections. I don't really want to participate here for a variety of reasons, but wish everyone the best of luck in discussing and hopefully obtaining an NPOV article. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the templates as, except for the "context" one, the issues seem to be gone in the version I edited in which I included much of the later version. If not, then reinstate. I don't see the big problem and why there has been fighting over this. Time to delete this article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tagging

I do not see how the advertising, context, and unclear tags apply to this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See my comments in the RfC at 00:04, 9 April 2015 Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I read them. Seem mostly to do with structure and sources. I disagree that the average reader coming to this article would find it advertising, without context, or unclear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also a complete absence of context, which I rectified in the "later version." I wouldn't object to removal of the advertising tag, however. No, on second thought let's leave it there please, especially since well-warranted tags were just removed without discussion here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It completely escapes me why we have to have this discussion and why if you think there is multiple problems with the article, you cannot be bothered to fix them and instead just decide to deface the article. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I did fix them and was reverted. That is why I started an RfC above. There was no "tag-bombing" and I'd appreciate it if you would restore the ones you removed, as they are explained in my post in the RfC where I went into this article's problems in some detail. See my post at 00:04, 9 April 2015. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Konveyor Belt, in all fairness, Cta's actions are far from drive-by tagging. See the sections above and the article history. He boldly introduced what he believed were improvements (I think some was improvement, and some felt negatively biased). He was reverted. A discussion is ensuing. Tag(s) are part of the correct process. Which tags should be included are under discussion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The discussion seems mostly to be about whether there has been COI editing on the page, and whether it is thus POV. The other tags are mostly about structure, which is tangential, at least for now. Once we decide what contentwe want to include or not in the article, we can worry about organization and copyediting later.

Regardless, I see the point in your arguments, and feel free to revert me. KonveyorBelt 17:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well my fairly long discussion of the article in the RfC, the one with the bullet points and boldface, was entirely about the content, point by point. Messy, confusing, incomplete, puffy and generally npov. The tags have all been stripped away except the npov. Look, I'm not "born to tag" but the maintenance tags are for situations like this. Would appreciate your reverting em as I may be out of reverts on this lovely day. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think the word "deface" as a descriptor for good faith article improvements crosses the line. Jusdafax 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've reinstated the tags that keep being removed. The RfC so far has indicated overwhelmingly that the current version has these very issues, so removing them is going against the consensus that is emerging among previously uninvolved editors. Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The voice introduction file

See Commons:Category:Voice intro project - en. See Ann Daniels, Gordon Young (artist), Joshua Greenberg, Robin Llwyd ab Owain and Thomas Tidwell – just some randomly chosen articles which link to audio files in that category. Do any of these people have notable voices? Do we have any criteria for deciding which living persons' voices are allowed on Wikipedia and which aren't? Content removal of this sort strikes me as gravedancing on the page of a banned user. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of voice samples of non-notable owners of websites of this size? Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Your question is not relevant, because the owner of this website is notable. Arguably at this point, the site owner is more notable than their site, as they are perhaps better known for their critical commentary about Wikipedia than they are known for operating this particular website. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The subject has been debated quite a bit but the consensus seems to be that no, he is not notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (4th nomination) Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I've taken the delete arguments there to heart. We should probably have a guideline restricting these "voice intro files" to articles about people, thus by following that guideline, we can safely remove the voice file from this article about a company, with no prejudice towards the person. It seems the other uses are limited to biographical articles. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agenda-pushing

WP:NOTFORUM. Also, talk pages are for discussing edits, not editors. Take editor concerns to WP:AN/I. Discuss article improvements elsewhere on this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I charge Coretheapple with bias and agenda-pushing on this topic and ask him to desist editing this piece, as he is clearly incapable of NPOV on this topic. Carrite (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Bullshit. This article was and thanks to a revert, still is a puff piece, a disgrace that does not even pretend to reflect what is stated about the subject in the reliable secondary sources that have written about it. To repeat what I said in response to your identical missive on Talk:Wikipediocracy, when an article has significant neutrality issues, when it is basically tailored in ridiculous ways (a voice file?) to satisfy/promote the subject, it is necessary to remove puffery and insert factual material that has been deliberately or negligently left out to not displease the subject. In this article, is becoming increasingly clear that the slanting of this article has been totally deliberate, and with every "your mama wears Army boots" dumb personal attack generated against me concerning this article, that becomes even more obvious. Isn't it remarkable how little is said by the defenders and controllers of this article about the substance of this article? Are you really so much enthralled by the subject that you would allow such a patently bad article as this one? Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) While I wouldn't go so far as Carrite, your posts here and on Jimbo's page indicate you seem to have issues approaching this subject neutrally. In no way does this article "provide insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject". It states what the subject did and the reaction to its purpose. --NeilN talk to me 14:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC) No, there is insufficient context, and you should not be removing maintenance tags with a fallacious edit summary like "tag bombing." I fully explained the rationale above, including why there is inadequate context. The article does not put the subject's business in the context of the paid editing controversy on Wikipedia. The sources (AP, Zittrain, CHE) did. The article didn't. In fact the article is kept artificially short through the cherry picking of sources to avoid context. The article cherry-picks its sources so blatantly that it fails to state that the "compromise" with Wikipedia ended in the site being banned from Wikipedia for spamming the site with commercial advertising. If we're going to have an article on this subject, it needs to be accurate, no matter how much that may displease the subject and his many friends on Wikipedia and off. The pattern of this discussion from the beginning, which is continuing, is that the defenders of this article take a WP:Ididnthearthat attitude, disregarding the flaws in the text. I guess that's because the text is pretty well indefensible. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I agree that Coretheapple is editing out of malice, playing Wikipedia games ("it's just so incomprehensible! I'm just trying to help spread the sum of all human knowledge!" Right, sure you are bub) to make the article as negative as possible.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC) And you should know that's not what the tag is for. You're describing a "significant viewpoints" and neutrality issue, not a context issue. You're also letting your advocacy against paid editing affect your posts here. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Then you win, take out the context tag. Look, the reason the tags are there is to point out defects in the article. See below. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC) (ec) Dan, per your self-description as a newspaper reporter, which of the following two accounts would be considered more accurate and complete at The Christian Science Monitor: A few days after MyWikiBiz was launched, the site's user account was blocked by Wales on the grounds of "paid editing on behalf of customers." It was one of the few such blocks personally by Wales in Wikipedia's history.[8] Wales called Kohs to tell him that paying for edit was "antithetical" to Wikipedia's mission. Wales viewed the problem as one of "conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety arising from editors being paid to write by the subjects of the articles,"[8] He and Kohs reached an agreement, under which Kohs could create "Wikipedia-like" articles on his site and that they could then be "scraped" to Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors. According to Kohs, about ten articles came to Wikipedia by this method.[3] The agreement between MyWikiBiz and Wales did not last long. Articles from MyWikiBiz were nominated for deletion, and MyWikiBiz participated in those discussions.[8] Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules were being drafted at that time, and Kohs believed one rule as allowing him to post article text on his own user page at Wikipedia. Wales called this "absolutely unacceptable," and blocked Kohs from editing Wikipedia[3][8] or this one: Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales called the commercialized editing "antithetical" to Wikipedia's mission and "absolutely unacceptable"[4] and blocked Kohs' account from editing Wikipedia.[9] However, in August 2006, Wales issued a "mutually beneficial" compromise[11] where he encouraged MyWikiBiz to author and post content on a GFDL-compliant section of MyWikiBiz.com, which could then be scraped by non-paid, independent editors into Wikipedia and other GFDL sites.[9] Kohs' company stated that he was committed to write only about notable companies in a Wikipedia-like style.[4] The first few weeks that he wrote articles onto his own site saw ten articles transferred to Wikipedia that way.[12] Which one is more useful for the reader? Which is more informative? By the way, both are sourced to the same sources that were already in the article. To avoid unnecessary suspense, the second version, the one that doesn't actually say what happened, is the one that the people controlling this article have insisted upon. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) And by the way, is there anything inaccurate in the first, longer version? What's wrong with it? Why are you so hysterical about having an accurate description of this business in Wikipedia? Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I'd like to read Dan's professional response to your question. This is an area of judgement, where someone like me, as an amateur, would appreciate some guidance. On the other hand, given that we are drowning in promotional article-spam, I'll ask you your own question: why are you so hysterical about Wikipedia's article about this particular business? Surely there are many other article-spam pages where you could more quickly make an impact without consuming so much time dealing with resistance to your changes. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC) A "professional response" from a troll-only account, and whose self-declared IP just was blocked for disruption in these articles, would be a nice change of pace. I'm not being hysterical. I'm responding to hysteria, and there's been plenty. I've edited in this area for years, beginning with BP. I've never seen such determined WP:OWN behavior. The very fact that we're having such an inappropriate discussion as this in article talk space is an indication of how wack-a-doo this situation is. But look, it is what it is, and I'll try to direct the conversation back to the article as much as possible, no matter how determined they are to change the subject.Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC) By the way, you should read carefully what you just wrote. The very fact that there is "resistance to my changes" is an indication of how serious the WP:OWN problem is with this article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC) You've mischaracterised Dan's IP editing as "trolling", and I don't agree that it was appropriate to block that account, which was not editing disruptively. Perhaps there is a battle for "ownership" here; what I don't understand is why you choose to continue to engage in that battle for ownership of this relatively minor article. At a much more important article like the one on BP, I could understand if you chose to spend more time on that. So, looking at your most recent edits there, I see where you responded to a BP representative's complaint on the talk page about use of press-release sourcing from the other side in a court case against BP, and replaced the content with citations to neutral news sources. You replaced undue negative material about the article subject with more positive (neutral) material. That's the opposite of what you're arguing for here. Are there other articles about companies where you replace undue positive spin with more neutral sourcing? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Yeah, this is a wonderful soul-searching personal conversation but I have to agree with Jusdafax that it's disruptive as all hell, and was clearly started and perpetuated for the purpose of disrupting this talk page, discourage discussion of the article and its crapitude, and drive me away. So if you want to chat about my editing elsewhere, I'm game. Or not. I'm not responding to disruptive shit, politely phrased or not. Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Here again, I agree with every word Core has written, in contrast to his detractors, who continue to use self-evidently inflammatory rhetoric. This section begins with a direct personal attack: if the editor believes the charge, it should be taken to ANI, not published here. I also agree strongly with Core's observation that the article version Core is attempting to improve is slanted towards its subject. We are dealing with a topic where money is involved, and I suggest that sections like this one do not help improve the article but appear to attempt to deliberately ramp up tensions. The goal appears to be to drive Core away. I'd call that disruptive editing. Jusdafax 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Well I followed WP:YMFTT but now we know what's going on (duh) and I think adult supervision might be required to hat this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to the "Paid editing issues" section

The RfC above is stale. The audio file has been removed and the 2014 conference ban has been removed. I've copied this proposed change from the above hatted section. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Current text

Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales called the commercialized editing "antithetical" to Wikipedia's mission and "absolutely unacceptable"[4] and blocked Kohs' account from editing Wikipedia.[9] However, in August 2006, Wales issued a "mutually beneficial" compromise[11] where he encouraged MyWikiBiz to author and post content on a GFDL-compliant section of MyWikiBiz.com, which could then be scraped by non-paid, independent editors into Wikipedia and other GFDL sites.[9] Kohs' company stated that he was committed to write only about notable companies in a Wikipedia-like style.[4] The first few weeks that he wrote articles onto his own site saw ten articles transferred to Wikipedia that way.[12]

Proposed new text

A few days after MyWikiBiz was launched, the site's user account was blocked by Wales on the grounds of "paid editing on behalf of customers." It was one of the few such blocks personally by Wales in Wikipedia's history.[8] Wales called Kohs to tell him that paying for edit was "antithetical" to Wikipedia's mission. Wales viewed the problem as one of "conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety arising from editors being paid to write by the subjects of the articles,"[8] He and Kohs reached an agreement, under which Kohs could create "Wikipedia-like" articles on his site and that they could then be "scraped" to Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors. According to Kohs, about ten articles came to Wikipedia by this method.[3]

The agreement between MyWikiBiz and Wales did not last long. Articles from MyWikiBiz were nominated for deletion, and MyWikiBiz participated in those discussions.[8] Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules were being drafted at that time, and Kohs believed one rule as allowing him to post article text on his own user page at Wikipedia. Wales called this "absolutely unacceptable," and blocked Kohs from editing Wikipedia[3][8]

It's not "stale," it was commenced three friggin days ago, and I don't see the point of repetitious discussion over the same issues, sections and so on. But don't let me stop you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• So is this business a website or a paid-editing service? The lead says it's a website, but virtually the entire article body discusses a paid-editing service. The lead is supposed to summarize the article body, but the body pretty much ends in early 2007. Based on the current article, I would title the article something like Commercial editing of Wikipedia by MyWikiBiz in 2006. And the proposed additional detail about that only reinforces the need for a title change. I know virtually nothing about what this business has done since early 2007. Did they abandon paid editing? If so, when? Are editors paid to edit their site? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a thought. There seems to be no sourcing concerning post-2006 apart from the site itself, and it is certainly correct that there would be no notability except for the events of 2006. Coretheapple (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you tag this for advertising? What business would market themselves in 2015 by making their page talk about virtually nothing but their former business model from nine years ago? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Because the article is promotional. See my comments in the RfC. I'm not going to repeat them. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

However, now that the audio has been removed, and that was the main promotional element, I agree the advertising tag can go and have taken it out. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So your remaining issues with the article all revolve around what you feel is biased and limited discussion of this business' operations in 2006, and you have no plans to add more content about what the business has done since then? If so, then I think you need to propose a new title for the article, so as not to disparage the company by giving undue weight to the events of 2006. See WP:RM. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sourcing post 2006 or early 2007 apart from the website itself. As for the title, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. It sort of makes sense to change it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Article disimprovements

I repeat, this tag bombing by Coretheapple only serves to add a "badge of shame" to the article and is unwarranted. It should be reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

They're maintenance tags, and they are substantiated by the so far nearly unanimous views of uninvolved editors in the RfC. Give it up. If I could fix these problems without a gang of involved editors reverting, I would, but it would be pointless without a consensus because of the WP:OWN behavior in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Completely incorrect. The RFC has not one word about "no context" and little on "written like an ad". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it highlighted the audio, but that's out and so is the tag - I've removed it. I still feel that the article tends to promote this business by rewriting history in effect, providing an incomplete history and leaving out crucial facts. But the tag concerns the tone, which is not like an ad, and the unnecessary audio is out. As for context: that's one of the main problems with the article and it certainly in the RfC, in spades. See "paid editing issues" in boldface. If or perhaps I should say when that problem is fixed, that maintenance template can go. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, weight and NPOV. If "incomplete" was a criteria, 85% of Wikipedia articles would be tagged for "insufficient context". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion and the purpose of the RfC is to find out if there needs to be more context. So far the RfC is saying that it does. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias revisited

Bring "charges" to WP:ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I repeat my charge that Coretheapple is violating WP:BLPCOI by continuing to edit this article: "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Thank you, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Tim, respectfully, bring "charges" to WP:ANI. Article talk pages, as you know, are not for that sort of thing. I will note that MyWikiBiz is not a WP:BLP, so I don't see how WP:BLPCOI in principle, regardless of the facts of your assertion of personal controversy. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC) The BLP policy applies throughout WP, and of course applies to this article—which is mostly, in fact, about GK. The article talk page is a legitimate venue for Tim to raise the issue of probable COI, which some might see as self-evident from Coretheapple’s commentary thus far. If Coretheapple, who is an intelligent and well-meaning editor, sees merit in this view, and chooses to step back, it would save the tedium of a drama board squabble. Writegeist (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Then bring it to the BLP noticeboard if you feel that way. I'm reinstating the hatting of this conversation, which is inappropriate for an article talk page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WMF banned

MyWikiBiz is globally banned by WMF in 2017, but I have to find the reliable source for it. Thingofme (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)