User:Equazcion/sandbox2/Archive255

A separate business WP

A separate WP should be created.
It would adhere to WP procedures and agreements, and users would sign up to that.
All monies would be donated to companies local enviroment, including charities. There will be no profit made. This should be a red line.
Companies should agree to any monies being paid to their local communities to foster good works. This would be cast - iron AGF, and would indicate the ethical solidity of interested companies. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bring this to Meta. Ross Hill (talk) 23:09, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC) 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I need to knock this up into a more detailed proposal though. What metawiki portal would be most appropriate Ross? Irondome (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think somewhere, someone actually suggested something like this on Jimbo's talk page and frankly this sounds like the best route. Maybe not as proposed above but using the Wikivoyage model. Perhaps something like "Wikispotlight" (sounds better than Wikibusiness or Wikiforhire) and leave the entire subject of paid editing as ambiguous as it is at Wikivoyage. As I recall there is no such policy of paid or promotional editing on that site or any particular rule about a business writing their own information if it is relevant for the page and section.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think the concept of the ultimate desination of any monies paid through using this mooted new sub-Wiki would be revolutionary. Companies would agree that any monies paid would go to charitable or local good cause foundations. It would attract some potentially huge revenue, (I think BP would love it :)) and would indicate that participating companies have a strong ethical semse, or perhaps merely a sense of positive PR. Any monies accrued using WP would be small change, and they would gain great kudos. The foundation may need to take it on, but potential revenues for positive charitable or educational programmes could be considerable. Just initial thoughts here. I agree this model is the way to go. Irondome (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So we'd have 2 Wikipedias - shall we call them PRpedia and NOPRpedia? With the PR folks banned from NOPRpedia, but free to pitch as much as they want at PRpedia? Lots of questions on the details here, but there is one very big problem. If we disclosed to the readers that PRpedia editors were allowed to put in "hidden" PR pitches into their encyclopedia, then they'd have very few readers. They'd also tend to have pretty poor articles outside of business areas - except that they could just copy NOPRpedia articles. They'd also have very biased articles on business, so when readers figured out what's up, they'll all go back to reading NOPRpedia. PR folks are not idiots, so they'd just go back to undisclosed editing at NOPRpedia, and PRpedeia would die, no readers, no editors. If anybody disagrees, of course, they can just form their own PRpedia and see how successful it is. The WMF will supply the software for free, and probably even help them download all the articles to start. Actually there are mirror sites that do this already, but I'd guess all the successful ones have one thing in common - no hidden PR in the articles.

A more direct approach might be for the WMF to just provide space for declared PR companies or business to just write whatever they want about their clients or themselves in the form of CC-BY-SA licensed articles. They wouldn't be good secondary sources, but we could use them as primary sources as needed, as long as the companies provide adequate info that the writer is who he/she claims to be - i.e. the public can hold them responsible for what they write. Again, the companies can do this themselves if they want on their own websites, but heck - why not as long as they agree not to put their advertising into our articles? As above, they could pay the costs of keeping the site open. A couple of problems here though. 1st the PR folks won't do it - they wouldn't fool anybody if their "info" was in this form; and 2nd the WMF has always said that it wouldn't take advertising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Great feedback. Appreciated. I dont agree with large chunks, but we have a coherent dialogue on this path started. Irondome (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Irondome (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Smallbones. It's not realistic. Feel free try it anytime. These companies want to be listed and covered by Wikipedia-proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've thought along these lines myself - and rejected the idea. There already are Facebook, MySpace, AboutUs and so on where they can post their PR speak twaddle for free. Why provide them with another space for the same? These PR people already seem to think people love their stuff - I saw a van belonging to a well-known mattress manufacturer the other day, and on the back it said "Follow us on Twitter @xxxx!". Mattresses? People who are that desirous of finding the latest news on mattresses? Cameras and computers I could understand, but mattresses? PR gone barmy. Keep Wikipedia free from this nonsense. And don't lend the name to a PR pushing venture. It's bad enough with xxxx-Leaks and Conservixxxx around. Peridon (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently several mattress companies use Twitter. Tweets include "NOTHING ELSE MATTRESS..." and "Students! Be careful of buying a used mattress from Craigslist." Comedy gold. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a spinoff wiki is that it will never achieve the same level of Google importance that enWP has. I remember during the MMA wars when a great faction of the supporter camp up and decided to set up a MMA wiki after irreconcilable conflicts with the generally accepted Policies/Guidelines/MoS/Best practices. Whenever you search for a MMA topic Wikipedia is typically one of the top 5 sites simply because we do uphold a specific set of editorial practices. I don't think we want to give any opportunity for free-advertising to have any linkage to Wikipedia's good name Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...have you edited Wikivoyage Hasteur? I have actually been collecting some information from business' on my travels and taking pictures of some of the more interesting California Hotels/Bed & Breakfast to add to articles eventually, but I have added images and other contributions to a number of articles. It's great fun I think. Take a look at the article for Hollywood. Note that there is contact information, addresses, and very "pamphlet" style writing with what some might call "promotional tone". And that article could use some expanding as a travel page. Why couldn't we have something similar that isn't specific to travel. Maybe "Wikimarketing" if we want to be blatant, but I think it needs to be purpose driven and have a need to feel in the right manner and the best idea I come up with is "Wikispotlight" or something similar sounding that is simply a place that allows a magazine style of formatting. It would be filling the nich of "this need" for paid and unpaid advocacy of subjects in a little more graphic looking and slicker format, as paid code writers would be able create far more complex templates and creative ways to us mark up coding. I think if we ever tried to fill a "need of paid editing", this would be the way to do it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot down this proposal entirely. I've had the same thought as this proposal many times. It would solve the problem of our readers being deceived, and the endless arguments that paid editors will give when they are edited. But the likely failure of this experiment to draw in advertisers only highlights the fact that the advertisers don't want to just advertise here, they want to deceive our readers, and steal our credibility. It just wouldn't work as far as attracting the advertisers to the new site.

But it could likely work in another sense. Going to court against the advertisers would likely be quite complicated under the current set-up. The courts would likely address questions like: What rule did they break? Why is this a cause of action in court? Having this alternative advertising site, with a small fee required, would make it all very simple: theft of services. An advertiser who had the opportunity to pay for an ad, but instead just inserted it in an article would not have any case in court. They'd be in and out in 5 minutes. Guilty as charged. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So I take it consensus indicates its an idea so bad, it will stampede an octopus. Irondome (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put that much weight on it. I think TParis even mentions somewhere that something like this wouldn't even need a decision here. I think it might be something being proposed to Meta.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Exact wording people are supporting?

I've proposed conditions that I'd be comfortable with for unbanning this user. But I've yet to see a clear idea of what conditions, if any, we'd require before we unbanned him and his company. I'd like to see a specific proposal from the user directly (I believe he can edit his talk page and if not perhaps through WP:ORTS. In particular I'd like it made clear if he is agreeing to have all folks editing for his company identified (and if it's just future ones or would include the past) and how exactly he'll have paid editors proceed. I'm pretty happy with the changes to his website, but I'd like to get some kind of sense that those will stay around. Basically I'd like to hear what he's committing to (if anything). I feel it's really unclear what people are supporting (or not supporting) above. Hobit (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What they support is in fact unconditional removal of ban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked on his talk page and the following is the reply to the question above (Mojoworker (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)):

As the founder and CEO of WikiExperts I am happy to state clearly that, if WikiExperts is again able to edit Wikipedia, we agree to follow all COI Guidelines to the letter for every edit we make moving forward. That includes disclosure of any account used to make an edit from that point forward, as per the condition set within the original ban regarding the condition for unbanning. Disclosure will take place in full adherence to the COI Guidelines. Prior to the ban it was our opinion that it was unclear whether or not COI disclosure was mandatory, and if it had been made known to us that it was mandatory and not an issue for debate, we would never have made previous edits contrary to the guidelines. Now that we know disclosure is mandatory, we have altered our practices to adhere to the new set of rules. I have reviewed the above proposals for how new forms of COI declarations could occur, and state here that WikiExperts is fully willing to work directly with the Community to develop a system of declarations that makes the Community comfortable and provides an additional level of neutral scrutiny for all our contributions. We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia. Because of previously signed NDAs, we have no ability to reveal the past clients, however, we pledge to no longer sign agreements that would disallow us from full COI disclosure, so that all future work can be verified as within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Ethics page on our website already states as such, and past references to confidentiality of the service have been removed. We would very much like to prove that we are not harmful to Wikipedia, and to show that we add neither promotional nor non-notable material to the website when allowed to edit. AKonanykhin (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

Topic ban?

I propose a topic ban for Loomspicker from all Islam-related articles.Pass a Method talk 22:59, 20 October 2013 (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.

Loomspicker again

I moved it to ANI Pass a Method talk 01:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I've raised this issue here before, but the user in question oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days while the thread was open. To sum up, User:Loomspicker is a single-purpose account devoted to pretending Islamophobia doesn't exist by scrubbing the word from Wikipedia, and in the service of this crusade, has engaged in a number of prohibited behaviors. In addition to the evidence detailed here, which includes the introduction of factual inaccuracy, blanking sourced material, and adding scare quotes, he has more recently continued to misrepresent sources ([1] [2] [3]), remove sourced material ([4]), delink pages in an apparent attempt to orphan them so they can be deleted ([5] [6] [7]), and otherwise edit in a disruptive and POV manner. Please deal with this even if the user goes inactive in order to avoid scrutiny. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I take this to ANI instead? Either way, I don't want this to be archived without being addressed simply because the user stopped editing right when the thread opened. That's what happened last time, and obviously he simply resumed the disruptive behavior as soon as it seemed like no one was looking anymore. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More of an ANI thing IMO, but since it's here, I'll reply here. (Nowadays apparently you're supposed to use some accursed template to move a thread to ANI, and I can't away with it.) It would be easier to take stock of the situation if you provided a link to where you raised the issue before, Roscelese. If they repeatedly go inactive when they're under scrutiny, and not at other times, then that's significant, but I'd like to see for myself. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

...It's already linked in my first post? But here is the link again. link –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, yes, this sort of thing should be over at WP:ANI, since it's an "incident", so to speak, regarding another user. As far as I (non-admin) know, WP:AN is more for general announcements and requests, while WP:ANI deals more with user behavior. Ansh6 6 6 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Support block or topic ban rom Islam for Loomspicker. I have been going through this editors contributions and he is clearly anti-Muslim, goes around articles related to Muslims and puts derogotary information about them as well as other unsavoury edits. Pass a Method talk 15:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I share Roscelese's and Pass a Method's concerns, which I also had after seeing this edit which removed five sources. The fact that these same types of edits are occurring across multiple articles is troubling. I'm not sure if a block is required, but a topic ban should definitely be put on the table for discussion.- Mr X 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That edit was about what should be included in the article, not necessarily vandalism. Our talk page discussion on the issue clearly shows that. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism, only that it seems to be part of a pattern of erasing the concept of Islamaphobia from Wikipedia by Loomspicker. - Mr X 00:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Very weak support based on review of edits over the past few days. Some seem to be done with the agenda of removing any sense of "racism" from Islamophobia pages and to cast Islam in a bad light. But based on the evidence presented by Roscelese, the user does seem to have an agenda and is barely here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I propose a topic ban for Loomspicker from all Islam-related articles.Pass a Method talk 22:59, 20 October 2013 (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.

User:Bidgee 's edit warring on Telstra article

This user reverts edits without reason, refuses to explain his reasons on TALK page, and deleted attempts to TALK on his user page. Pls review and help. Thanks Jimbob96 (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR? ES &L 11:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look and research, there is a single editor who socks by using a number of usernames and IPs (even YuMaNuMa picked up on it) to push though content that isn't supported not just by editors but facts. I'm tired of POV-pushers using socking to get what they want and not the unbiased facts, as far as I'm concerned I've given up on Wikipedia, it is a lost cause and no wonder why it's losing valued contributors. Bidgee (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbob blocked, and one of his IPs also. Feel free to report additional accounts or IP addresses to me, and I'll happily block them. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

template uw-block

Unlikely and beansy. Can be dealt with through the 'normal channels'. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should we update template {{uw-block}} to warn users that "pinging" or otherwise using notifications to flag other editors may result in loss of talk page access? NE Ent 02:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds risky ala WP:Beans. PaleAqua (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And unnecessary. We don't need to provide a specific do and don't list to blocked users - they will do what they do, which will show what it shows, and consequences will or will not be forthcoming, depending on situation and circumstances, which I doubt we could fully explicate even if we wanted to. What's wrong with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I might be a bit slow on the uptake today. Do you mean blocked users repeatedly "pinging" others in order to pester them with the little red notification box? Reyk _YO! 04:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe NE Ent's comment was sparked by Tumbleman's talk page access being removed by JamesBWatson after Tumbleman repeatedly pinged IRWolfie, with whom he had had disputes which were the root cause of Tumbleman's being blocked. See Tumbleman's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That and what occurred at User talk:Retrolord#Appeal_workshop. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppose someone violates an interaction ban or topic ban by repeatedly hitting the thanks button on the edits of someone they shouldn't interact with or on a topic they should avoid. That would of course be a violation (with no need to spell it out in the rules) that could end in a block, but can you still thank people for their edits while you are blocked from editing? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's try that out, shall we?

Just kidding. IMO it would have to be proven that it's not genuine (aka intended to be disruptive or in violation of the ban) - do interaction/topic bans explicitly include thanking? Ansh6 6 6 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can not thank someone for an edit while blocked. I recently raised the question of disabling pings from a curious perspective.—John Cline (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

John, what do you mean about "can not"? Is it technically disabled, or are you making an emphatic "must not"? Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not technically capable, whether it was disabled by design, or simply a bug that needn't be fixed, I do not know, but the (thank) link does not appear for a blocked user.—John Cline (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2013 (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.

Appeal of indefinite block by Dunkmack9

Per consensus below (and editor's increasingly-absurd efforts at digging their own grave), user's unblock has been declined and they have been warned that further disparaging comments will result in talk page access removal. m.o.p 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Dunkmack9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dunkmack9 has posted an unblock request on his talk page. Since the block was the result of a community discussion, I am posting here to initiate a discussion as to whether or not the block should be lifted. Here is a link to the blocking discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#User:Dunkmack9 on a fringe theory tear. Here is a link to the sockpuppet case page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dunkmack9/Archive. I strongly oppose an unblock at this time, as the unblock request demonstrates that the user, if unblocked, intends to continue pursuing fringe theories regarding Pearl Harbour conspiracy theories and Rudolf Hess (disclosure: I am the person who brought Rudolf Hess to Good Article status). From a content point of view, it's not enough for our purposes for an editor to read a book on a topic and then, in the belief that they have discovered The Truth, relentlessly pursue the insertion of fringe theories from said book into our articles as though they were true. In the case of Hess, the conspiracy theories are mentioned in the article as an important part of the story, but that's it. In addition to his original account, he pursued disruptive sock puppetry to continue pushing fringe theories whilst blocked and lied about whether or not User:Grapestomper9 was him, in the face of some pretty overwhelming behavioural evidence. Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#User:Grapestomper9. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose an unblock at the present time, based on the unblock request and on the previous discussions. --John (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Between the socking and the failure to get why they were blocked in the first place, no reason to unblock at this time. Miniapolis 22:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose this editor clearly isn't going to abide by our policies and guidelines on fringe theories and is just using the unblock request as an opportunity to rant about the topic and about other editors. Other behaviour since the block [8] [9] [10] has been less than helpful. I suppose we could have a topic ban from all fringe theories, or all topics relating to the Second World War, but inflicting this kind of behaviour anywhere else wouldn't be fair. Hut 8.5 07:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. It's good that this editor returned to the original account and abandoned the sockpuppet, but the person behind these accounts is not here to improve the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. Rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs, ones that he and very few others have identified—he is an activist for fringe positions, replacing mainstream consensus with fringe, or at least holding them up as equals. We do not need this kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - this user is not here to build an encyclopedia by a long shot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, I think he's made his intentions perfectly clear at this point. An unblock would result in an almost certain re-block and unnecessary frustrations for other contributors. Kuru (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment Dunkmack9 has posted some further remarks on his user talk, but has not asked for them to be copied over to this page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

He's clearly just digging himself a hole at this point. The talk page remarks in question are lengthy rants about the topic and about other people he's interacted with, and very little is directed towards the reasons for the block at all. About the only points he does make in his defence are that the problems were confined to two articles, which isn't true, and that there were no threats or foul language, which is beside the point, as he wasn't blocked for doing either and you don't have to do either to get yourself blocked. Hut 8.5 17:15, 22 October 2013 (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.

Mops at the ready

There's a pretty big backlog of requests at requests for unblock, the majority of which are from COI/username blocks. Meet you there?--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my usual hangout ... but not allowed to with this ID :-) ES &L 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The last time I looked at your performance in that area (12-18 months ago) it was seriously problematical. You were driving such editors underground by banning usernames that openly flagged their COI but didn't breach policy as, "purely promotional", and supporting the blocking and other harassment of COI editors simply for declaring their COI. If that hasn't changed, then I hope you keep well away. If you return to that area with those behaviours intact, I'll be calling for you to be formally banned from dealing with COI editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That might be the funniest thing I have read in months. Thanks for that. You'll have to stop letting your irrational dislike for me to stop getting between you and your keyboard ES &L 09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't dislike you at all. I admire you. But you were behaving foolishly, along with User:Orangemike and others, in a very difficult area - COI editing - a while back and driving COI editors underground, just about the worst outcome we could have wanted. I'm hoping that's changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, your absence is certainly noted.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many cooks, not enough bottle-washers. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation

Based on a community discussion, MRM pages were put on article probation in October 2011. There is no expiration date. Based on a subsequent discussion, a WP:1RR restriction was imposed, which is set to expire on October 20, 2013.

I propose that we extend the 1RR restriction for another year. At the same time, I propose a modification of the wording. The general probation impacts all MRM-related pages. However, the 1RR restriction, as worded, literally applies only to the Men's rights movement article. I propose that the 1RR restriction can be applied to any MRM-related page. It has already been applied in that fashion, at least by me. Some of the entries in the sanction log aren't clear in that regard, so I'm not sure if other admins have also done so.

Although no sanctions have been logged since August 2013, the previous sanctions have been effective in minimizing the disruption to the MRM pages. In particular, a 1RR restriction, which is a bright line, is helpful. There are still editors out there, who, in my view, have an agenda, and I suspect more will pop up, even if we are vigilant, but potentially a greater number if we are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I support this motion because it is clear that POV activism by SPA editors is a constant feature of the topic. Raising the floodgates will overwhelm the article and related topics. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the truly horrible state of the Men's rights article (see my rant on the talk page), I'm unclear how things could get much worse. "By their fruits you shall know them" is a pretty good motto. And the fruits of this 1RR restriction are pretty nasty. Maybe not as bad as if the restriction were removed, but certainly not a poster child for 1RR working in this area. I'll defer to those that generally oversee this area on the 1RR continuation/expansion, but wow, that article is a mess of generalizations. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I support the renewal and expansion. The restriction has very clearly forced things to be discussed on talk pages, and limited general disruption to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Support renewal and expansion. Although I haven't been active in the men's rights arena much lately for real life reasons, I have still been keeping half an eye on it, and the 1rr restriction has helped some of the silliness. The article isn't great, and until a greater body of comprehensive secondary literature about the movement emerges would be hard to make great, even without the silliness - and the silliness makes it harder. 1rr hasn't been a panacea, but has helped restrain some of the biggest problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Bbb23's proposal fully. Article remains on my watch and I see this as a positive for the community to renew this probation as suggested.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, unfortunately, because removing it would make it worse. Hobit, which rant? I'd be interested to hear if you have any suggestions for improving the "policing" of the article; I wish I had some. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's under the NPOV tag section. I think the real issue is that those unhappy with the article have at least a few good points--the article is poorly written and seems to paint with too broad a brush. After having lots of things explained to me, I think the problems are fixable but it's a lot of work and I'm a horrible writer and I should be working... We'll see. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support based on the history of conflict over this topic. I don't think a 1RR restriction puts an undo hardship upon Editors who work on these articles. Restriction can be revisited in a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Reviewing the article and talk page history of Men's rights movement suggests to me that the value of the 1RR restriction on that specific article is still rather high and it should therefore be kept. Looking through the sanctions logs also leads me to support explicitly expanding the restriction to other MRM-related pages as well. In both the specific and the general cases, there still seems to be an issue with editors attempting to insert (and re-insert) advocacy without the support of good sources. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines work fine for the other 4,353,716 articles, so I don't see why this one needs special treatment. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- That could well be that you simply do not know about the conflict and disputes involved with the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  - Whoever the IP is, they're not new to Wikipedia, given this reference to Malleus, which, in turn, links this comment. On a more substantive note, the IP is, of course, wrong. There are many articles and topic areas at Wikipedia that are subject to restrictions and sanctions--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    - Even less correct is the notion that Wikipedia policies and guidelines work. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As a former Wikipedian whose experience with Wikipedia was significantly diminished by Bbb23's tactics on this article, I'd like to point out something revealing in Bbb23's request. Bbb23 wrote that it is "useful in dealing with accounts that are agenda-driven". This implies that one's status of being "agenda-driven" (in Bbb23's opinion) is more important than whether or not one is correctly applying Wikipedia policy. The fact of the matter is that once Bbb23 has decided that you are "agenda-driven", he or she will dismiss your arguments as "weak" without actually discussing their merits, even after repeated requests to go address a certain point. Furthermore, Bbb23 has a history of deciding that users on one side (mine) of a given argument are "agenda-driven", while not noticing any agenda-driven actions on the other side. The upshot is that it appears to be impossible to get Bbb23 to even discuss the issue on its merits, let alone concede that the other person has a point. Eventually, another admin comes along and says Bbb23 is right, also without discussing the merits. Checkmate, and whether or not one is correct is irrelevant. This is all documented in detail, with diffs, in the archived discussion here[11]. That said, I recognize that the community has made its choice.98.222.60.232 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

On HiyoHiyo article

article deleted as A7; user blocked "indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) [..] CU-confirmed troll)"

The following discussion 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.

On article HiyoHiyo, I created for the subject's request. Another user is saying negative things about subject of article; they are person involved with the off-wiki harassment. The name is LINDA. LINDA has caused internet controversey before. Their website is here. (Sorry not good English) --Playabeacha (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2013 (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.

Complex username-block situation - Senseltd and Wikikl

Copied from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention at the request of someone trying to address the issue:

begin copied text

Senseltd (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) and Wikikl (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) Senseltd was blocked as a username block and renamed to Wikikl but the block followed to the new name. I assume the editor was frustrated because he began editing under the name Senseltd again. This has created a mess that is not the editor's fault. Separate from this, the editor has been warned about recent edits, but that is not what this is about. Recommended action: Rename Wikikl to "Wikikl-usurped" and block the account. Rename Senseltd to Wikikl and ensure that Wikikl is not blocked (if necessary though, give him a "final warning"). Re-create the account Senseltd and block it. Alternatively, just switch the blocks so Wikikl can edit and Senseltd can't and copy the edit warnings from Senseltd's talk page to Wikikl's talk page to make sure they are seen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Um, OK. Maybe you want to take this to WP:AN? It's a little more complicated than what we usually deal with. Daniel Case (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

end copied text

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've requested the attention of MBisanz, the bureaucrat who renamed Senseltd early last week. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've renamed Wikil to Wikikl-2 and Senseltd to Wikikl. Can someone communicate to him to now use Wikikl? MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@MBisanz: the best way might be to create the account "Senseltd" and indef-block it, then leave a note on both the user and user talk page explaining what is going on. If either or both of the existing accounts have email enabled, email might work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I emailed him when I did it, but I would prefer not to block him (and possibly upset him further), unless there is no other option. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Very diplomatic of you. I hope we can mark this discussion as "resolved" the next time he edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh oh

Nakon's toolserver account has expired - no more rangeblock calculator or autoblock finder. Does anyone know if any of these tools were moved to Labs? I have other rangeblock calculators I can use, but the autoblock finder is particularly concerning.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's licensed under the GPLv2 so I'll see if I can bring it up on my account.--v/r - T P 00:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to email Nakon and let them know I took a copy of their tool, but feel free to use this. Please don't update any links though. If Nakon restores their account or asks me to take my copy down, then it'll be pointless.--v/r - T P 00:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the stop gap. Note that the link to Nakon's tool is included in at least one template (i.e the unblock granted template used here). --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR claim

I see from their site that they claim a 'staff of 45 Wikipedia editors and admins'. Has there been any sign that they have a WP admin on their books? If true, would the standing of such an admin be affected here? I'm not asking for outing, or unfounded allegations. Just a sort of yes or no, and what if. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

– For reference, this is the site discussed: https://www.wiki-pr.com/

--Auric talk 12:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Of course their standing would be affected by this. Assuming they are being paid for being associated with a company, they have the possibility of doing serious damage. Among other things, they could hypothetically delete revisions unfavorable to them, protect articles in a dispute over content to something favorable, block accounts that are causing problems for them and be the judge of (deletion) discussions where they could pose as a neutral party when they are not. Being an administrator and being associated with Wiki-PR is a no-no. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also dug up this link to past discussions.--Auric talk 13:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There has recently been extensive discussion of Wiki-PR at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 144#Wiki-pr.com. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What happened to WP:AGF Moe? This whole thing is a big ABF witch hunt imo.--v/r - T P 16:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good faith is acting with detachment (as one paid for cannot, as they are attached) - good faith is (without other commitment) acting. Pretense is the opposite of acting in good faith, and failing to disclose a financial COI is acting under pretense that one does not have another commitment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with good faith. Good faith is trusting others. Being paid is not contradictory to improving the encyclopedia. Ya'all haven't proved Wiki-PR has harmed the encyclopedia. That makes this a witch hunt because they give you the "wee bee gee bees". Salem Witch Trials anyone?--v/r - T P 17:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What? Have you just assumed bad faith? Salem Witch trials? Did you read good faith? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

How about you address my point? Has any evidence been submitted that demonstrates Wiki-PR is a net negative?--v/r - T P 17:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Salem fucking Witch Trials. When is that allegory going to be officially declared "lame"? Soon... Doc talk 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Although there is no conclusive evidence, the thinking goes that such a team of editors and admins could essentially WP:OWN articles and insert NPOV material unopposed. KonveyorBelt 18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought witch trials was your point. But sure. This discussion is one example: it undermines the basis for assuming good faith. Moreover, it casts doubt upon the articles created by people who are not upfront about their paid interest. In every edit there is one judge of V; NPOV; NOR; and BLP and that is the User who makes it; sure others may come along and and debate it or even revert it -- sometimes. But where the judge has been paid for the edit, there is no basis for faith in the judgment, where the judge is not honest about the other interest they serve. It misleads our readers to present it otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doc, if you have another historical reference for trying someone w/o evidence and concluding them guilty and sentencing them, please share it. Konveyor - The thinking may go, but that's why we have a policy WP:AGF. @ASW - I'm sorry, are you saying the act of defending someone proves their guilt? No sir, that's a logical fallacy. Show me evidence. Or are you accusing me of being one of the 'secret admins'? If so, prove it or find yourself at ANI. (Since you can't, because I'm not, you need to rephrase your comment)--v/r - T P 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What? You are accusing you, which would be much more damaging to you than anything I have said. My comment said nothing about defending someone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A reliable assessment of the impact of Wiki-PR presumably requires a list of their accounts. Is there one ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be the easy way, but not the only way. So you're saying we can accuse and try someone because they don't make it easy to convict them? Do the work or this is all a witch hunt.--v/r - T P 18:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I said "A reliable assessment of the impact of Wiki-PR presumably requires a list of their accounts. Is there one ?" Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkin' like a witch hunter. Witch hunters deserve no answers. Doc talk 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

For a list of (some of) their accounts, see here and here. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So, without even having to look at a single edit, and assuming those accounts have been connected to Wiki-PR, there's evidence that one or more Wiki-PR editors have used deception via sockpuppetry and resources have been wasted having to deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The casepage says it's not socking.--v/r - T P 20:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEAT is part of the sock-puppet policy. So is "editing under multiple IP addresses [...] where it is done deceptively." I presented evidence of the latter in the cases that were closed without investigation (search for the word "Pleasanton"). —rybec 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A more precise phrasing would therefore be to say "via WP:PUPPET policy violations, primarily WP:MEAT" rather than "via sockpuppetry". So this case is rather like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying, with financial gain replacing nationalism as a motivating factor. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis: The original question that I answered was whether the standing of an administrator be damaged by being paid by Wiki-PR or not. I still believe it would be. It's not a question of whether the material being put into Wikipedia is acceptable or not, they are paid a lot of money so that it sticks and isn't PROD'ed or AFD'ed. The problem is that editors associated with Wiki-PR are being deceptive by pretending to not have a conflict of interest, which certainly being paid to edit does make you have one. It's doubly so for an administrator though, because you're in a position of power which means you have the nod from the community to go ahead do what you like as long as it seemingly fits within a policy. There's not much to assume good faith on because if you haven't directly declared that you're a paid editor, as an administrator, you're going to cast doubt as to whether your administrative actions were in fairness and all your past actions would be given a second look, which to me tarnishes your reputation as an admin. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're assuming those editors value the payment more than Wikipedia. I've been paid to write an article before and I had no problem putting Wikipedia first. It wasn't a ton of money, but that's not the point. The point is, you have to judge people by their edits and not because of who they work for. If you can't find anything wrong with the edits (and let me once again repeat that no evidence of misbehavior has been found and a user has now been blocked not because of his edits but because of who he works for) then there is no problem.--v/r - TP 19:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  - No it is not an assumption, it is a documented, evidenced problem [12]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    - Okay, so where are the bad edits?--v/r - TP 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
      - Did you not read the article? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the LTA or SPI for Morning277? There's plenty of deleted tripe in there. There's plenty of obvious PR fluff added to Priceline's subsidiaries, and although it's not the worst stuff in the world, it's still PR fluff. There's plenty of other horrible Wiki-PR edits easily trackable, but for the most part I've given up tracking them until it's clear what we're going to do regarding them now that the SPI is closed. By itself, the fact that Wiki-PR that was responsible for the series of events that resulted in the departure or effective departure of multiple long-term highly productive editors is enough to say they're a net negative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, seriously TP, 'no evidence of misbehavior has been found'? Between the LTA and SPI cases and what has happened in private channels, people have spent hundreds of hours compiling evidence of misbehavior by Wiki-PR, and there's been plenty of it. Are you thinking of the cban for Alex's group that passed a few days ago? They are a different group of people and should not be conflated. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Kevin, I am. Which group is that guy then?--v/r - T P 22:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion (and blocked account) from several days ago involved Alex_Konanykhin's WikiExperts.us. They generally only accept high profile clients and make an effort to stay within at least a couple margins of neutrality so that they don't get outed. The people involved in Wiki-PR create huge numbers of really shitty articles, and don't try to approach anything resembling neutrality on their higher profile clients. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My bad then. In that case, all of my arguments thus far were meant for WikiExperts.--v/r - T P 22:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question that I am not sure has been answered: it seems highly dubious they have admins on their payroll. That said, I think that we would benefit significantly from having an open conversation about what we are going to do about this clearly identified, clearly problematic issue. I would encourage people to avoid further discussion of unrelated matters (like WikiExperts) in this thread, and if anyone wants to hat my off-topic comments, please feel free to do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please archive my talk page

That'll teach me to try and work on a friend's tablet while he's giving me a ride home! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This is User:Salvidrim!, I'm logged out cause I'm not home. I just created User talk:Salvidrim/Archive8 to archive part of my talk page but some automated anti-vandal filter prevents me from removing the same sections from my main talk page as an IP. Please just remove sections up to and including User talk:Salvidrim!#Help me with the summary "manually archiving per request"... thanks. 66.129.141.197 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Done: [13] :) equazcion → 13:28, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Why are your archives at a different username (one with no exclamation point (!))? Ah, none of my business. Rgrds. --64.85.214.181 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's actually only this new one that's at the non-exclamation version, or so it looks. Could just be a mistake. equazcion → 14:03, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Ah... I was renamed from Salvidrim to Salvidrim! a few months back and my existing archives were moved & renamed but I never updated the links on my talk page's archive box, so the new one was created at my previous username. It's not a problem, since I still control both SULs... I'll just fix it at some point today. Cheers, and thanks Equazcion! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 19 October 2013 (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.

A second opinion please

Hello. I have been recently blocked for 24 hrs period for alleged edit-warring on Boro Primorac article, I have decided not to appeal due it's short period however I believe putting me on some warning list is way to harsh. You can see me reporting Timbouctou (a user who has been blocked and warned several times before for similar transgressions) at WP:AN3. The final result was that I was also blocked and put on a warning list. Now it is my deepest conviction I did not deserve this kind of treatment because: 1. I did not break the 3RR at the moment I reported this incident. I made only three reverts and the situation already diffused. My final edit which I added later along with the valid reference shows and proves I was right the entire time. 2. By the subjective opinion of the moderator who handled this issue I was also, allegedly, edit-warring. But the question remains: is reverting a disruptive (and unsourced) editing of an aggressive user, who BTW followed me to that article just to instigate a conflict, edit-warring? By such logic any action of reverting disruptive editing can be interpreted as edit-warring. And 3. If you look at my history (I am on Wikipedia about 2 years now) I have never ever been in such dispute as this, nor have I ever been even warned for anything similar. And now I am blocked and warned for something someone else did...I accept that perhaps a part of responsibility lies in my corner but surely I shouldn't have been treated the same way as the other person in question - the other user was not even put on a warning list for that same article. So I ask for a second opinion and is this really fair? I feel this was blown out of proportions, the main issue was 3RR violation by the other user. I ask that you review how justified it is for me to be placed on that warning list. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Warning list": what do you mean? This edit? If so, you've not been placed on a warning list; this is basically something saying "In case you didn't know, these articles are treated differently, so be extra careful to edit within the guidelines, since doing otherwise will quickly result in a block". Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are asking a few different questions there. One is "were you really edit warring" and the answer to that is yes. Unless you were undoing blatant vandalism there is never an excuse for edit warring. Nobody is in the right in an edit war, anyone who participates in one is in the wrong. I hope that clears up that point.

As to the list, it is a list of many users who have been warned that they are editing in area where there are sanctions in place. It does not confer any special status, you are not under any personal restrictions, it is merely a log stating that you were warned about the general sanctions in this area so that if you violate the terms of those sanctions and are blocked for it you can't turn around and say nobody told you they existed. It's not a mark of shame or anything, just a log for the sake of clarity. If you don't want to be affected by it you can either make sure you abide by the terms of the sanctions or just don't edit in that topic area anymore. It is no more complicated than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah...thank you Nyttend and Beeblebrox for replying. I interpreted that list as some type of warning where I would get some special attention or something. If it's only a notice list then I don't have a problem with it. As for my block, yes, I consider I wasn't edit-warring but reverting obvious disruptive behavior. You can see from my edits that I was reverting to the original consensus version of the article which the user in question was trying to change without discussion or references and IMO followed me there just to instigate conflict. However since the block was already applied and expired I guess that issue is already settled, I don't see how I can remedy that. Anyway thank you both for replying. Shokatz (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, editing the Boro Primorac article is under discretionary sanctions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 1:50 pm, Today (UTC−7)

It falls under ARBMAC, which applies to "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted". Given that the edit war was about whether this footballer is Croatian or Bosnian, the ARBMAC discretionary sanctions apply (although I'm open to a different interpretation). —Darkwind (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that Shokatz's claim that "If you look at my history (I am on Wikipedia about 2 years now) I have never ever been in such dispute as this, nor have I ever been even warned for anything similar" is quite simply not true. I've personally warned the user about edit warring here. The user regularly edit wars on Croatian related subjects to try to WP:WIN content disputes, often violating the 3RR in the process. See Talk:2013_enlargement_of_the_European_Union/Archive_1#Deletion_of_official_sources, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Admin intervention please... and [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] where the user made 4 reverts in a little over two hours. The user has demonstrated a lack of understanding of WP:3RR, and their usual response is to deny or rationalize having violated the policy citing "vandalism" or "disruption" as excuses, even when (as in this case) there is an obvious bright line 3RR violation (ie "I am convinced I did not break the 3RR, the fourth edit was added after the reported incident and it included a reference which ended the entire charade"). TDL (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

When I said I was never warned LIKE THIS I was obviously talking about moderators not about users who were in "content dispute" with me...which BTW I had only 2 of such cases in my entire time at Wikipedia prior to this. And funny you should complain after all this time since I clearly remember you being a participant of that same incident. Erasing official sources without discussion or consensus. The entire issue was settled when it was ME who stepped back and when you accepted to leave those sources as you should have done in the first place. And as far as I remember it was I who started the entire discussion on the talk page although it was you who was removing references from the article. Saying "The user regularly edit wars on Croatian related subjects" is a fallacious and offensive statement. WP:CIVIL anyone? Shokatz (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Then your memory is mistaken as I never removed any official sources. In fact, I agreed with you that the source should not be removed. And the entire incident was actually resolved when you complained to ANI that multiple long-standing, good standing editors were "clone accounts" without any evidence and made WP:Hitler attacks that their edits were "vandalism" even though it was clearly a content dispute, which led to the article being full protected.

You have also been warned for edit warring on a Croatian issue here ([20], [21], [22], [23])

There are plenty of other recent examples where you edit war on Croatian related subjects. Just from the last couple weeks I found: [24], [25], [26]; [27], [28], [29]; [30], [31], [32]; [33], [34], [35]; [36], [37], [38].

Obviously I am interested in Croatia-related subjects. I have never made that a secret and I was always very open with that. Also I am not exactly sure what is your motivation for this entire "show" of yours, although I can guess by the way you are choosing certain edits of mine and making baseless out of context comments. So since I don't really want to spend any more time on you, I will just say this - if you think I am such a disruptive menace for Wikipedia, feel free to report me. It's simple as that. Over and out. Shokatz (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Block appears MORE than valid. They have also been made aware of discretionary sanctions on Balkans articles - which is simply SOP. No issues with block, or the "adding to the list of warned users" ES &L 23:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

AKonanykhin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17 October 2013 ban discussion

A user has requested that a ban recently implemented here be lifted. I must remark that the ban was placed without meeting the formal requirements of WP:BAN, which states that there must be evidence of repeated disruption by a user. The closing admin Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated that they are ~~"cutting and running",~~ going offline for one week.[39] I have no issue with an editor taking a break; ~~but an admin should not make a contentious administrative action if they know they will be unavailable to explain.~~ Before leaving Kudpung refused to explain their actions when I challenged them. ~~Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to explain their actions.~~ Regrettably, I am unable to discuss the matter with Kudpung, so we are right back here.

The text of the appeal:

I would like to request the lifting of the ban against WikiExperts, that is now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive254#Community_ban_proposal_for_paid_editing_firm_wikiexperts.us

While I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion, we respect the community’s decision that COI disclosure must be mandatory for us for anybody from WikiExperts to edit Wikipedia, in addition to all other COI guidelines. Therefore, we will be treating COI guidelines as policy from this point forward.

Until the ban is lifted, we have stopped editing as per the ban’s request, and will only do so once the ban is lifted in accordance to the language within it, which read, “The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases.” Once the ban is lifted, COI disclosure will be followed by anyone who edits in conjunction with WikiExperts.

As the CEO of WikiExperts I am stating here that from this point forward we will comply with the terms set out for lifting the ban. We have already updated our agreements and are in the process of updating our Ethics page on our website in anticipation of this change.

Would you please post my statement at the AN so that we can proceed with the conditions for lifting the ban. Thank you! AKonanykhin (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My greatest concern is that the user was banned without any diffs showing disruptive edits. They were banned for suspicion that they might do something wrong. This shocks the conscience and goes against our principles. In any event, the user has stated that they will adhere to policy and to WP:COI, and will disclose any paid editing. I think it will be better for Wikipedia to encourage this firm to operate in the open rather than driving them underground. We have no practical way to identify their employees, so the ban is a toothless provocation and ensures that these editors will never disclose what they are doing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Further info from the user:

On Friday, I attempted to communicate our compliance to the Arbitration Board, and its representative User:Roger Davies responded that the better way would be to place it on my Talk Page and ask somebody to add it to AN (see below). Yesterday, I complied with Mr. Davies' recommendation, posting our compliance pledge to my Talk Page and asking the admin Kudpung who enacted the ban to add it to AN. As I had no means to contact him directly, I did so by placing a note on his Talk page, and promptly removing it to avoid accusations of unathorized editing; the full text was only left on my Talk page. In retaliation, Kudpung banned IP address of our Hollywood FL office and greatly expanded the ban to any account "operated or assumed to be by Wikiexperts.com" This wide ban was enacted without any evidence of any violation of any rule by our company, as you rightly observed. I personally was banned without having ever made even a single edit in any WP article.

Thank you for considering his appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

For completeness, what I wrote was:

"Thanks for your email. We would in all likelihood refer this to the community as it was a community ban decision, with plenty of participation, relating to a hot button topic.
"However, it occurs to me that you can appeal to the community yourself - more quickly - by posting this request yourself on-wiki on your user page, with a note asking for it to be cross-posted to the Administrators Noticeboard."

I have formed no opinion on the merits or demerits of the appeal, Roger Davies ^talk 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Support First a minor point - the AN Ban discussion was closed on the 17th while the notice of unavailability was posted on the 20th. It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that Kudpung closed it on the 17th, knowing that he would be unavailable starting three days later. The timing is unfortunate, but that's all it is.

That said, I support overturning the ban. I haven't read the entire discussion, but I see enough problems that, as a minimum, we should start over and do it right if a ban is warranted, and ideally, find a way to reach out and determine whether there is a way to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia without declaring that the business cannot do anything.

The most important reason, and already noted, is the lack of diffs. Have we ever banned an contributor without citing a single diff? That alone ought to be a sufficient reason for overturning, but I'll not a couple other points. The Morning277 issue understandably leaves a bad taste. However, when one entity involved in paid editing wreaks havoc, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all entities involved in paid editing deserve similar opprobrium.

Some of the support are in reaction to strong words by the owner, which appear to defy our positions on COI. I agree that there was a bit of a bull in a china shop reaction, however, those concerns appear to have been taken on board, and the owner has changed policies. If we supported a ban based upon his initial position, we at least owe a second consideration when that very position is changed.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment, concurrent with the ban discussion there were policy discussions to try to establish standards for paid editors. One proposal banning paid editing was heavily opposed. Another, drafted by me, requiring paid editors to disclose has receive significant opposition for being too strong. It seems very strange to ban somebody for something that's not yet policy, and especially when the proposal "paid editing is forbidden" has a majority of opposition in the community. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the lack of diffs is a lot less troubling to me than to you all. If someone says "I will trash Wikipedia" we have every right to say "You may not edit here". Of course his statement wasn't that strong, but "I will not play by your rules" is close enough IMO. That they are willing to follow the rules at this point is wonderful, but I think it's fair to worry if they actually will. I'd say:
- conditional support. With the condition being that every editor who has or is editing for them be identified including alt accounts. If and when we find someone editing for them who isn't on that list, we can reinstate the ban. First of all, I think that's how paid editing should work (and I speak as someone who has written a proposal to the NSF to pay people to edit here--it barely didn't get funded sadly but I'd have had all editors identify that they were being paid). Secondly, given previous statements from this company, I think "trust but verify" is important. Without such a bit of clarity it will be impossible to fully verify. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  - So you think someone should be banned for thoughtcrime whether or not the actually broke any rules. OK, lets put your theory to the test. I will not play by your rules. I will trash Wikipedia. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making those two statements without any evidence that I have ever actually trashed Wikipedia or refused to follow the rules. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    - There is plenty of evidence that this person has violated COI and our meat puppetry rules in the past. His threat to do so again is credible, yours is not. If you were to trash the main page and then later threaten to do so again, you'd be blocked in a heartbeat. It is unreasonable not to react to credible threats. We do it all the time with legal threats here. Why is this different? Hobit (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
      - Obviously I cannot do the experiment but I believe that you are mistaken. If I trashed the main page, was blocked, and the block expired, I do not believe that I could be blocked for simply saying that I will do it again. Legal threats are a different matter; WP:LEGAL specifies the reason why they result in a block: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels", and of course we have a policy page that says that I cannot make legal threats, so that puts it back in the "violating an actual rule" category. Can you point me to the guideline where me saying (in a non-disruptive way and without breaking any other rules) that I will trash the main page but not actually doing that is blockable? I maintain that our policies forbid blocking someone for thoughtcrime. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        Trashing the mainpage isn't quite the same as sockpuppetry, though. Let's change your scenario. Let's say that on the first day of every month you reveal an act of subtle vandalism that you've previously inserted for "humorous effect" using a dynamic IP sockpuppet account. And let's say that you make a show of telling people that you intend to continue the game indefinitely. Your claims are credible and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some kind of sanctions. AGF isn't intended to act as a hobble to common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        Actually, I am not assuming good faith. That rule would be for looking at something that may or may not be against the rules and deciding whether to assume that it isn't. This is about a hypothetical editor who has broken no rule while expressing an unpopular opinion. And your new scenario would be someone being disruptive (we don't need to spell out every way someone can be disruptive). Both the repeated vandalism and the making a show of telling people that you will continue to do so is disruptive. I am talking about someone who has broken no rule (unless someone wants to point out where we have a rule against thoughtcrime). Even under your scenario, if an administrator responded to the clear disruption with a block that doesn't mention trolling or socking, but instead named something that is entirely within the rules, that would be wrong, and the blocked editor would be well within his rights to ask that the bad block be removed, even if it was only to have it instantly replaced with a good block based upon actual evidence of violating a policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        
        Ah well I'm right there with you regarding the COI/NPOV bit of this mess. I haven't yet seen any evidence that AKonanykhin had engaged in violations, but only that he expressed his view that COI looks like a set of recommendations rather than like a set of firm rules (on which point I must regretfully agree with AKonanykhin). And my !vote below arises because I too think that basing the ban on this goes too far. If the ban is to be upheld I'd really rather it was clarified that it is related to the sock/meatpuppet admissions from SPI. And I guess that brings us to the point at which we differ in views. I see a substantive difference between blocks based on specific tangible crimes like vandalism or BLP or COI/NPOV violations and those based on intangible crimes like sockpuppetry or my subtle vandalism hypothetical. If a ban is based on a tangible violation (like COI/NPOV violations) then we absolutely should have specific diffs to point to that document the violation. But if the ban is based on reasonable suspicions that intangible violations (like sockpuppetry) will resume then I think the threat of harm/disruption should grant the blocking admin somewhat greater leeway (the block/ban would be subject to review anyway). In the matter at hand, I don't think the proof at SPI is strong enough to indicate that AKonanykhin poses a SOCK threat going forward, but if he does violate SOCK then the ban can always be re-applied. -Thibbs (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree with Jehochman on one point: Wikiexperts was already "underground". The refusal to be open and honest about whose articles they were paid to edit - and lets face it, this is a PR group so AGF or no, NPOV cannot be automatically assumed - was antiethical and counter to community expectations. If they are prepared to act above board, then I am willing to reconsider my previous support of the ban. Reso lute 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support unban I supported the ban in the 17 October ban discussion, "until they change their declared policy and commit to stating their COI and restricting their edits to talk pages." That appears to have happened. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I read their comments a couple of times and am missing where they say that they will restrict their edits to talk pages. Is that somehow implied by the "following all COI guidelines"? If so, I'd prefer it be made explicit. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  - Yes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Given that effective enforcement of the ban would requiring outing every Wikipedia editor, it's a self-righteous feel good action, not a reasonable approach to an admittedly very real problem. It will drive paid editing deeper underground and provide yet-another-thing for Wikipedia editors to accuse each other of. NE Ent 16:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This appeal, though no fault of the User that represents the corporation states much that is irrelevant 1) "driving underground" has not occurred as the corporation has undertaken not to edit through the ban; 2) the community decision was based on statements of the corporation and through its representative, which in the consensus opinion made banning the needed remedy. Nonetheless, the undertakings of the corporation seem to address the major consensus concerns expressed, so if they follow through, including disclosure and their web page, and under current Wiki norms: not opposed to unban pursuant to these immediate undertakings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Conditional support: If they have indicated that they will fully comply with WP:COI instead of treating it as "unethical" as they were before, then the conditions that led to the ban have been satisfied. However, it should be made clear that reversion to previous behavior will lead to the banhammer being dropped once more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just a lot more cynical or less trusting than you guys, but I have serious reservations about lifting this ban. The attitude expressed here is shocking and appalling on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. I mean, reading it now, I'm still not totally convinced that it's not a trolling parody. This is someone telling you that their official viewpoint is that it's "unethical" to disclose a financial conflict of interest. How would a sane, reputable publisher respond to a declaration like that?
I'm a bit skeptical about the turnaround from the defiant stick-your-guidelines-where-the-sun-don't-shine attitude to the current conciliatory request above, and I've generally found modifying one's actual ethics to be much more difficult than modifying one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. I don't think this is a good idea. I'm opposed to it, unless we have some concrete way of ensuring that they follow through on what are currently unenforceable promises made under extreme duress. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@MastCell: I've checked out the user, spoken with him, and am convinced that he's too serious to waste time trolling us. I think the ban was hasty, and there is a principle at stake: we don't ban people for suspicion. The banned account never even edited main space. Why are we so desperate to muzzle this guy? Let's assume good faith. If I'm wrong, WP:ROPE will be effective. Let's let his editors disclose themselves and promise to treat them fairly, while firmly enforcing WP:NPOV and all our other policies. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As one cynic to another -- if the ban is upheld, do you really think the company will cease editing? NE Ent 23:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the argument that the possibility that a banned user will keep editing should be a valid reason for uplifting a ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I am sure many folks here are aware that in light of the recent uncovering of the SPI network run by WIki-PR, new policies were proposed to ban paid advocacy. See discussion here for a sense of the very mixed thoughts of the community. I posted notice of this discussion, there. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose at least for now. While it does seem like the process by which WikiExperts was banned was flawed, there is deep discomfort in the community with this kind of activity. We should not allow WikiExperts back in until the community has made up its mind on how to deal with this paid advocacy. I also note that the brief description that appears with WikiExpert's "hit" on Google, reads "WikiExperts handles this task for you, protecting your online reputation." Wikipedia does not exist to enhance or detract from anyone's reputation - it exists to provide NPOV information. If you read their Ethics page, while it is great that they say they will not remove any well-sourced negative information, at no point do say that they would actually add negative information about a company, even if that information were well-sourced. This is what I mean, about editors working for WIkiExperts actually not being aligned with WIkipedia's goals. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support The whole community ban proposal was a illegitimate witch hunt intended to out editors and get them banned. That goes against what Wikipedia stands for. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong support Konveyor Belt is absolutely correct. And for the admin who closed the discussion in favor of the ban- shame on you and you should be stripped of your admin abilities, that was an abuse of power and completely not in line with policy or even the community feelings on the issue, there is no way in hell that discussion was in favor of a ban by the Community and should have been closed as "no consensus" at the very least. I am so disappointed. The ban is illegitimate and was never agreed upon by consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support per Jehochman and SPhilbrick. We do not want to go down the road of banning folks preemptively and without evidence. Especially not with a user/company that is making a good faith effort.--v/r - T P 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Conditional support - more or less as per Bushranger above, if they have indicated they will comply with WP:COI fully. It would also help a lot if the frankly inexcusable statement they made about how it is unethical to abide by our policies and guidelines is very visibly and prominently rescinded and apologized for. I believe I had justification for supporting the ban based on their stated disregard for policy and guidelines, and I believe that keeping the ban in place until that statement is clearly retracted and they agree to abide by all relevant policies and guidelines is clearly indicated, here and elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Conditional support. If every WikiExpert editor declares their COI, and participates via talk page suggestions, I am willing to let them do so. Regarding the absence of diffs; they are not needed. I approve of the banning of an editor who declares the intention to violate Wikipedia's policies. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. The ban was ridiculous and out of process. Eric Corbett 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. I find the reasoning of "no diffs provided" and other process-related complaints about the banning discussion to be a bit circular and more than a bit lawyerish. When someone states they plan to circumvent the guidelines here, I'd say the need for specific diffs of editing infractions is pretty much superseded -- especially when that circumvention is what prevents us from potentially finding any such diffs to begin with. But that said, since I only supported the ban because of their stated policy of non-disclosure, if they change their policy to full disclosure -- an oft-updated list on their site, of the Wikiepdia usernames in their prevue, would be ideal -- I'm fine with letting them back (that is, unless/until we pass something that says paid editing is disallowed altogether). equazcion → 17:53, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC)
- So you think that the requirement for actual evidence of of editing infractions superseded if someone says that they plan to circumvent the guidelines here? OK, lets put your theory to the test. I plan to circumvent the guidelines here. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making that statement without any evidence that I have ever actually circumvented any guidelines. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  - Of course I wouldn't waste time acting on your issuing a hypothetical challenge just to make a point, but if it seemed like you were remotely as serious about that as this person who posted it as part of his business plan, I would do so for you, and you'd be the first to know how it worked out. equazcion → 05:18, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
    - Let's pretend I was serious and credible. (Quaker cannons are of no use if the enemy knows that they are Quaker cannons... :) ) What policy would you cite as me having violated? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
      - WP:COMMONSENSE. equazcion → 15:31, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
        Sorry, but you cannot invoke WP:COMMONSENSE to justify banning something just because you don't like it. Also, it's an essay, and you cannot ban someone for violating an essay. That section ends with "Editors must use their best judgment". If your best judgement (the generic "your" -- I am not pointing at you personally) says that it is OK to ban someone not for anything they have done but rather for an opinion they hold, then I must question that judgment. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        According to WP:Blocking_policy#Disruption you can be sanctioned for breaching guidelines as well as policies... Depending on context, your hypothetical example statement in itself (and AKonanykhin's initial statements that caused the ban to be imposed) could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive – and sanction worthy. Mojoworker (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        The only way that either statement by iteself could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive is by pretty much ignoring what those guidelines actually say and using a definition that encompasses anything someone doesn't like. It makes denying the holocaust disruptive and pointy. It makes arguing against anthropogenic global warming disruptive and pointy. It makes saying that the WMF is going the wrong way disruptive and pointy. In fact it makes anything that a bunch of editors disagree with disruptive and pointy. Of course someone can be disruptive and pointy while expressing those unpopular opinions -- we have plenty of examples of that -- but expressing an unpopular opinion without violating any policies or guidelines is never disruptive or pointy. Remember, next time you may be the target of a thoughtcrime ban instead of the proponent. --Guy Macon (talk)
        That's essentially all true. The community decides what's considered disruptive and what makes sense -- pointing to the essay again, which albeit merely an essay, describes what IAR tends to mean. If you think what's transpired here demonstrates that someone doesn't need to violate a particular posted policy in order to be banned, you'd be correct. You seem to find that a disturbing notion since it means there would be no solid rule structure here and everything is therefore subjective, but that's basically how Wikipedia works, by its very principle -- for better or worse. equazcion → 21:35, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Support unban which should never have been enacted in the first place. --John (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Conditional support for lifting the ban. Clearly reveal all editors being paid by this company, and commit to exercising conformance to all policies and guidelines by those editors. Guidelines may not be "policy", but they are deemed guidelines because they are agreed by the community to be best practices. Improper conduct by any editor under the authority of this company may result in a sanctions being applied as to all representatives of the company. bd2412 T 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support The problem last time around was their opposition to our policies. They have committed to abiding by the community norms now, so there isn't an ongoing reason to restrict their editing. Some have suggested that the ban be lifted under the condition that WikiExperts only ever edits talk pages. While I agree this is a good practice to encourage, I don't think we should make the unban conditional on them never making an article edit. {{requested edit}} gets backlogged often, sometimes for very extended periods of time... and editor retention in that area is poor. This is especially true with respect to editing articles about obscure companies. Uncontroversial edits should be uncontroversial, even if made by their team, and WikiExperts should not be discouraged from making grammar corrections or fighting vandalism just because they're being paid for that purpose. Edits where neutrality is a possible concern should, obviously, be discussed, but I don't want to see them banned in the future just for making neutral changes to articles on their own. We need people to edit these articles. As long as they are being edited neutrally, that is a net benefit to the project. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

~~Conditional support~~ While I don't support the venture of WikiExperts, per se, insofar as they recognize and comply with the COI policy, there would appear to be no grounds to band them.

That said, I don't think that the current policy is adequate, so hopefully this will lead to some sort of evolution vis-a-vis the current (inadequate) policies.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

- Oppose Upon reading some of the other comments about meat puppetry--setting aside the sockpuppetry--I've decided to change my vote until that issue is clarified. It seems that if you have more than one editor from a paid editing group editing the same article that other policy issues arise; for example, the Wikipedia consensus building process is undermined due to the contractual obligations of PR professional to PR client. The ban should be maintained until the community can work out a viable policy-based solution, or WMF imposes one. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 04:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, and make sure that this editor is handled in a fair and transparent manner. The speed of reaction has a knee jerk feel to it. I see no reason yet to ban this editor because he exhibits fairly ordinary behaviour, despite the paid editing accusations and the firm he appears to head being controversial. However, should his behaviour become worthy of a ban, yes, ban him in the future. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Conditionally support unban as the one who originally proposed the ban. If wikiexperts.us has now agreed to make the requisite COI disclosure, the ban is no longer as a preventative measure and would be purely punitive. Lifting of the ban should, of course, be conditional upon actually doing that going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support this is going to continue no matter how many we ban, better to address paid editors now and establish additional guidelines if needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I can't find myself supporting this unblock at this time. Just far to early in my opinion, and the exact reasoning seems to boarder on the desperate to unblock over what could be seen as a technicality. We are not a court of law, just volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Wikipedia is. It places an unfair advantage to articles that have editors being paid on a regular basis to edit here with permission. I see almost no way to make this work even with the proposal from below. But what I do see is many editors who have some argument I can understand if not truly agree with. This isn't a block appeal of a single editor. So I oppose the unblock of the entire company being allowed back right now, but would support the single editor himself being unblocked. Let him, as the CEO of this company, first lead by example. If they can be seen to be working within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia I think we can revisit this in a short time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Since when do we even consider an unban request just a few days after the ban is implemented? Come back a year or two from now. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since it emerged that this ban was incorrect in the first place, that the victim of the ban had done nothing wrong at all, and that the ban was placed to enforce a principle that the majority of Wikipedians do not agree with. That's when. --John (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: There were many diffs listed in the discussion showing infringements of WP:Sock puppetry here: [40] and also here [41] and here [42]. After concerns were first raised that there were infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user denied and said these accusations were done "falsely" [43]. But at the SPI investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts/Archive, User:AKonanykhin admits to paying an editor to insert a promo shot of Alexander Konanykhin into the Alex Konanykhin article. He also admits to paying an editor who was then blocked for insertion of spam and advertising [44]. So, when these concerns were first raised, user's response was to deny. Then, when clear evidence is presented, the admissions come. If the user really is contrite, then surely user would be more than willing to show this contrition by sitting out a reasonable time for a block, not just a few days. The unblock proposal sounds far more like a continuation of the falsehoods in an attempt to continue past behaviour. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Conditional support, with heavy emphasis on "conditional". I agree with Hobit and bd2412. Trust but verify, as Hobit said. All accounts must be identified. All accounts must agree to abide by policies and guidelines, same as any other editor. If evidence appears that policies and guidelines are being ignored or violated, the ban comes back. And I want to add that all the comments about the existing ban being improper strike me as wikilawyering hogwash. It was a proper ban, based upon explicit evidence and community norms. This isn't a court of law, and the pleading about process in this particular instance has been utterly groundless. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support: A dangerous precedent, banning editors you don't like on suspicion that they might be damaging the encyclopedia. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI and strong evidence of socking isn't enough to get over the "might be damaging" thing? Hobit (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  - That is correct. A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI does not justify a ban. Bans need to be based upon actual violations, not on expressing unpopular opinions. As for strong evidence of socking, please show me where in the ban request socking was even claimed. If you want them banned for socking, write up a proposal that says that, and include some sort of evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    - A large number of those supporting the ban included socking as a reason for the ban. Just search for "sock". Look, we've got someone who A) admits to using socks and having others edit for him (which would be meatpuppetry) B) we have ample evidence does use socks/meatpuppets and C) clearly indicated an intent to keep doing this. And it would be an unpopular opinion to say "COI is a bad policy". It would be threatening to disrupt to say "I've ignored COI and intend to do so in the future". Hobit (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
      - I of course have no problem with blocking for socking (with evidence), but a number of editors on this very page have told me that it is OK to block someone for (in your words) "A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI." Where is the policy that allows that? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        WMF Press Release The following statement would seem to indicate that there is a general policy violation in not declaring a COI. I don't know what the implications are regarding this ban, but perhaps it should be addressed in this discussion.
        Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices.
        --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        Sadly I don't think that could be used to mandate COI disclosures. There's a difference between passive failure to represent your affiliation with a company and active misrepresentation of your affiliation. Even the bit urging companies "to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia" is just that... an urging. But think how well that press release would be complimented by an actual policy mandating disclosure of COI. That would be ideal in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a policy directly addressing this issue is needed. Regarding the ban, I think that there is room to find a gray zone between explicitly declaring an intent to not disclose relationships to companies (don't know if they actually edited any articles for clients) and actively misrepresenting a relationship. It is more than a passive inaction, at any rate, based on the explicit expression of intent to not represent the relationship at all--to conceal it. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support lifting ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative but I don't believe there was evidence of damage done to the encyclopedia. As long as they agree to abide by WP:COI and be open about it, I think they should be allowed to edit on article Talk Pages:

"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question, or on a noticeboard such as WP:COIN. These changes may or may not be acted upon. Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest." WP:COI

I encourage them to join Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. If there are infractions in the future, they should dealt with. I don't believe in blocks based on suspicions, whether it is of a registered account or an IP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Support… a little dubiously. But yes. To get personal and historical for a moment: Jehochman is a trusting guy. I've watched him assuming too much good faith quite often, and getting it flung back in his face. By contrast, the point made by MastCell, the original Wikipedia Cynic, really resonates with me: one's actual corporate ethics don't tend to be so easily changed as one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. Agreed. But I believe, or at least I hope, that the statement by AKonanykhin above will make it possible to unban on the "trust but verify" principle mentioned by several supporters of the unban proposal. Presumably some of us cynical people will be watching and verifying. It also impresses me that Seraphimblade, the original proposer of the ban, is now prepared to support an unban. And I'd like to second Tryptofish's characterization of the claims that the original ban was improper as "wikilawyering hogwash". It was a proper ban, and it should be immediately reinstated if the unban is gamed in any way. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC).

Support. I am quite unhappy with the way that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us was closed. Normally when the result of a discussion goes against me I have no problem accepting and following the consensus, but in this case the closing comments ("There is a clear consensus to support the proposal, based both numerically and on the strength of the arguments. Among the Oppose !votes and comments are strong recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy, but that would be the subject of a separate discussion.") do not accurately reflect either the strength of the arguments or whether a significant number of the oppose comments were actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy. In my opinion, Kudpung let his own POV cloud his judgement. I think that he should have asked for a couple of other uninvolved editor or admins to agree with the closing, as is common in hotly contested proposals. I maintain that a fair reading of the arguments shows that it is the support arguments that are weak and are actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy by allowing someone to be banned even if they did nothing wrong, simply for expressing an unpopular opinion. That's a huge change from our policies and guidelines as written. Bans should be based upon actual specific edits that violate specific policies or guidelines, not on having a "contemptuous attitude toward our COI guidelines". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Many diffs proving meatpuppettry by people specifically connected to Akonanykhin were provided during previous AN discussion, and I do not see any procedural violations during previous discussion and closing. Where is disclosure? I mean the list of accounts that are currently used by members of this organization? Once again, this is not only a matter of COI, but a matter of proven meatpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, could you show me a few of them? I never saw any such diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we had at least four accounts acting his meatpuppets and edited his biography[45], [46], [47], [48]. One of them was blocked by an arbitrator, and rightly so. If anyone is interested in more detail, they can check previous AN discussion.My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Key point during previous AN discussion was that Mr. Konanykhin can not comply with Wikipedia guidelines (even if they wanted ) because they are bound by a confidentiality agreement with their clients. Is it still the case? I understand that it is. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have no interest in his contracts. If he is required to disclose for future edits, it is his problem to set up his contracts. That is not our concern. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jehochman I really disagree with you. Based on what you write here, I have a bridge to sell you! My point being, that in any transaction it makes to sense to be sure that the other party can actually deliver what they promise (ie, you make sure i own the Brooklyn Bridge before you give a million bucks for it). If WikiExperts cannot disclose who their clients are, then their promises to do so are hollow and are even bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

He tells: we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors [49]. It means that they have a number of "their" editors here and can not disclose their COI.My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be surprising, if such an agreement did not have an out for complying with the demands of the privately run website they intend to participate in, but I get your concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unban: as I previously said, I would support unban only if WikiExperts agreed to disclose all accounts they use. They've updated their ethics page. It's a step in the right direction, and seems to suggest they won't create or edit articles directly, but it doesn't go far enough. It says they will do their paid advocacy: "Without compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, our clients, and our own enterprise" which strongly suggests they haven't changed their previous position about keeping their accounts and client list private. That's unacceptable. Conditional support only if WikiExperts agrees to publicly identify all past, present, and future accounts of their employees and contractors, disclose all COI relating to their clients, and refrain from editing or creating articles directly. The previous ban was brought up and supported because WikiExperts flagrantly declared their intention not to abide by COI guidelines (see comments such as those on the Signpost recently). If they reverse this position, act transparently about their financial COI, and refrain from direct editing, then they are completely welcome on Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 22:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose The original block was based as far as I am aware, on indications that the "editor" would ignore WP policy. In other words, disruptive editing. Also there were a raft of sockpuppetry issues. I note the strong aversion to paid editing, its ethical and practical issues voiced by the community in that closed conversation. I believe user Kudpung was procedurally quite correct in his action. Why not just create a seperate business WP? I believe this is the thin end of the wedge, and the involvement of money, or worst, commercial profit as an incentive to join and edit WP will ultimately doom the project. If WP wishes to sup with the devil, it had better use a very long spoon. Irondome (talk)

Comment on proposal to lift ban. I think the risk of conflict of interest has to be severe when editors are paid. There are also plenty of unpaid Wikipedia editors who are not just subject to conflict of interest but are driven by special interests of their own, not neutral reporting. I agree that to ban a paid editor merely on a risk basis is itself questionable or perhaps unfair. I think that a paid editor should be required to post every one of his proposed edits on the article's talk page and leave it there for a week before posting it to the article. The talk page post should be clearly labeled as a proposal by a paid editor, with disclosure of his fee.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Support the ban (past tense), as enacted, despite procedural problems with the discussion.. Not because he is a paid editor, but because he is a non-repentant sockpuppeteer in control of undisclosed paid accounts. I don't support a flat ban on paid editing, as impracticable, with undesirable obvious consequences. I do support mandatory disclosure of paid-editor status for every account engaged in paid editing, and declaration of banned status on every person in control of an undisclosed paid account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, slander seems very strong, I didn't think my reading of WP:SOCK violation was less than obvious. Perhaps I misunderstand something. If AKonanykhin (talk · contribs) denies being in control of any accounts (whether technical control or by contractual arrangement) used for undisclosed paid editing, then I support unbanning, the ban having no foundation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC). "undisclosed" missing, always intended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I have no idea who you are in real life, but I know exactly who AKonanykhin is, and so does everybody else. We must be careful when talking about people, especially identified people. We've heard people say "sock puppetry" and "its obvious", but is it really? The hand waving doesn't convince me. We need to see the diffs of his sock puppetry. Surely somebody can reference one diff where he's damaging the encyclopedia, if he's been engaging in sock puppetry. I think what we have here is a bunch of loose talk, and then people come along, look at the thread for 30 seconds and say, "Yeah, me too, I hate paid editing." The lesson to all is to dig into the details and look at the evidence before opining about somebody's behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know who AKonanykhin is. I have not looked at that information, as I do not see this discussion as being about AKonanykhin, but about paid-editing in general. AKonanykhin deserves extra credence for speaking up openly, but I'm thinking that not all paid editors are organised by AKonanykhin. "Meat puppetry" and "sockpuppetry" are unfortunately strong pejoratives. We should talk instead of controlling undeclared alternative accounts (accounts clearly linked to the editors main account). We don't encourage this, but we allow it if it is not abused. The checkusers don't actively look for it in the absence of actual problems. I have no evidence or suspicion of AKonanykhin, or any of his writers, having submitted a damaging edit. However, many undisclosed paid editors, working unmonitored, may become damaging. I am keen to see us monitor paid editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

On the unban motion, I agree with Jehochman about procedural concerns with the cited ban discussion. I do not specifically criticise the closer, Kudpung.

AKonanykhin now seems to say that he, and all his professional associates, his paid editors, will publicly disclose their COI/paid editing. This is a major development, changing the situation. Exactly what "publicly disclose COI/paid editing" means, I am not sure, and would like to know. As I stated somewhere else, I think only a minimal disclosure need be mandatory.

Given AKonanykhin's new commitment, I support unbanning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to use of undeclared alternative accounts for good reason. Acceptably good reasons are poorly described, but there are reasons. Paid editing seems to be one reason. I am ambivalent on paid editing; it is a difficult reality for Wikipedia. On careful consideration, I think we must allow/support it, with restrictions, if the paid-editing accounts are disclosed as paid-editing accounts. Now, given that I'm supporting limited paid editing, I can see that it must be acceptable for respected editors who choose to engage in paid editing to use an alternative account that is not connected to their main account. I assume that AKonanykhin has an anonymous main account, and if so, I wouldn't ask him to declare it. If AKonanykhin employs Wikipedia paid editors, it is like meatpuppetry, but I think we must allow him to do this, subject to him committing to requiring his contracted writers to disclose their paid-editing accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unban (Support the ban) Agree with SmokeyJoe that paid editing by multiple accounts coodrinated from a single center is a violation of WP:SOCK as meatpuppeting (probably sockpuppeting as well). The only way we could allow paid editing by wikiexperts is if all the involved editors describe the conflict of interests and avoid edit warring. They did not do this so far Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What proof do you need? Wkiexperts themselves claimed that they coordinate hundreds of Wikipedia accounts. Coordinating multiple accounts is of course a form of meatpuppery (if the accounts related to actual people) or sockpuppery (if they do not). Until all those accounts are properly identified and connected to each other for basic srutiny I am opposed to lifting the ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I need diffs showing some of these accounts coming together to corrupt the consensus at a community discussion. For instance, if the Wikiexperts help each others articles survive deletion discussions, we can ban them. If you don't have that evidence, all you have is hearsay and malice. That's not enough to ban somebody. Mere suspicion that somebody might do something wrong is not a reason to ban somebody. Jehochman ^Talk 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But the tune has changed to try and twist out of the penalty. If we say okay, then you open pandoras box upon the website.--MONGO 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd simply ask that you look at the edits made to this person's bio and his various companies. There are clearly a number of paid editors working on those in clear violation of COI and our rules on meat-puppetry. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support unbanning of AKonanykhin and his company, on condition that any accounts used in the future by him, his company, regular employees who edit on its behalf, or its subcontractors are listed on a Wikipedia page (en:User:AKonanykhin would be the obvious place). Naming the clients is unnecessary. —rybec 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Conditional support pending full and retroactive disclosure of all accounts. I'm not convinced that this appeal is genuine based on past experience with paid advocates, but disclosure will go a long way towards addressing the concern. MER-C 04:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support I disagreed with the reasoning of the original ban, but I hoped that the issue would lead to some sort of consensus on how we should tighten the currently toothless "strongly discouraged" COI wording. It didn't. That said, we need to make it worthwhile for editors to disclose their COIs. Currently, it is in the interest of paid editors to hide their relationship with their clients - they gain nothing from disclosure in spite of leaving themselves open to harassment, and yet risk nothing by non-disclosure. By respecting WikiExpert's offer to disclose their COIs, we finally do the opposite, providing value for the disclosure of COIs that makes it worth their while to do so. It may not work, but I think we should respect the offer and give it a go. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - For what it's worth, I oppose this, since it's clear to me that the purposes of public relations people are antithetical to those of people who are attempting to write a NPOV encyclopedia. PR people serve a valuable purpose to the business community, and I have (indirectly) been the beneficiary of their work, but the usual course of business is that a PR person sends their info to some intermediary (a reporter on a newspaper, for instance), and the reporter decides how much of the info to use. It may provide a guide to the reporter for further investigation, or it may (in probably more cases than we'd like to know) be reported verbatim, but at least it has had the chance to be filtered through an intermediary who can use their independent judgment to weed out the worst of the promotional tendencies of the professional publicist. Reporters who pass along PR without vetting it have a tendency to be fired, or become PR persons themselves, because media outlets live and die by their reputations for accuracy.
However, when a PR person has direct access to the means of dissemination, as is the case with Wikipedia, there is no longer an effective filter between their output and the encyclopedia. (Those who think that the cumulative result of all editors watching over he encyclopedia is an effective safeguard might be interested in doing a search of the project for "penis" to see the extent of the run-of-the-mill vandalism which hasn't been reverted by such means.) This is where the danger lies. If we allow public relations people to have clear and unfettered access to edit the articles in the encyclopedia, it is inevitable that we will eventually lose whatever reputation we have built up for neutrality and accuracy. Yes, people will still come to Wikipedia for information, since that habit has effectively been formed, but we will no longer be a free source of neutral information, we will be just another media vector for promotion and publicity. Those who think otherwise are, I believe, sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the blatant reality of the situation. Those who protest that we can't effectively police PR misbehavior are like inner-city cops who let crime get out of hand because it was just too hard to keep fighting against it. Yes, obviously, if we were to ban paid editing (as I believe we should) those editors would work overtime to get around our defenses, and that might require some policy changes on our part, such as loosening the restrictions on CheckUser investigations, but new strategies from the opposition require such responses on our part, and using such we can keep PR-fluff to a reasonable level.
I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of those opposing taking steps against PR-editing are sincere in their beliefs, but I believe that are entirely and utterly wrong. The game changed when Wikipedia became the first stop of choice for many people when they want to get a quick bit of information, and such a vector cannot be ignored by people who live and die by their ability to get out their clients' message to the most people possible. We are no longer amateurs here, regardless of whether we get paid or not, we are professional information providers, and it's our responsibility to see that the information we provide is as accurate and unbiased as possible. To do that in a context where we give free reign to those other professionals, the PR people whose job it is to provide biased and celebratory information, is much more difficult, which is why we should not be unbanning any admitted PR person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is excellent comment. I completely agree. It matters a lot who edits. As someone else said, What is that he does? What is his nature? For example, contributors who are students, journalists, professional researchers or educators are relatively well fitted by their occupation to contribute here (sure, they can have a bias). However, paid professional propagandists are not. They should not be allowed edit here at all, or at least required to disclose their occupation and be closely watched by community. Such is life. Now, speaking about this particular PR company, they are openly telling at their website: Hey, our goal is to undermine Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Conditional support. I am very troubled by the statement above that "I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion." This isn't just a matter of deciding that some particular conflict of interest wasn't worth disclosing. Unless I'm very mistaken, this was an ongoing, systematic patter of undisclosed conflicts of interest. This suggests that you had a policy of asking "Am I doing something that doesn't absolutely break the rules" instead of "Am I doing something that (1) is ethical and (2) should be a positive for Wikipedia? I don't mind people being paid to write here, honestly and ethically, on topics of genuinely encyclopedic value that might not otherwise be covered. Writing puff pieces on topics of dubious notability while concealing one's economic interest in the matter is a very different thing. If you need someone to tell you that, it makes me wonder whether you even understand what ethics are. Before lifting the ban, I'd want to see a firm commitment not just to not outright breaking rules but to doing one's best to do intellectually honest work, including that you will be open to do warts-and-all writing. For an example of what I'm talking about, I did a piece about my own great-aunt Lena Levine. I disclosed this connection on the talk page and actively researched to find a citeable source stating that her so-called "consultant bureau for pregnant women" included illegal abortion referrals. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose unban Way too soon given that this was only enacted a few days ago. As this company's conduct amounted to utter contempt for Wikipedia's rules (it's not like WP:COI is anything new, and there's evidence that they were taking steps to avoid being caught out using multiple accounts), we need to see evidence that they're actually willing to abide by our basic terms and conditions before any commitments they make can be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Very conditional support. According to their website (as of right now): "As a part of the Wikipedia community ourselves we "talk the talk and walk the walk", confidentially representing our clients in a manner that the community can embrace." (my bolding). It's unchanged from what that page said before the block. To me this implies that they promise their clients that they will perform conflict of interest editing on their behalf while ensuring that no one will be aware of it. It's unethical and a statement of continued intent to evade scrutiny of their edits, unless they now plan to deceive their prospective clients instead of us. I'd need to see exactly how Konanykhin and his company plan to implement yesterday's promised disclosure of their editors' conflict of interest here, because it clearly removes one of their big selling points to clients. Of course, getting himself and his editors banned has removed an even bigger selling point, so they might just decide to go for the lesser of two evils. I also strongly agree with Tryptofish and Bishonen that the original ban was proper one, and it should be immediately reinstated if WikiExperts.us attempt to game it any way. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unban. Way too soon. And the statement on their talkpage should be followed by corresponding changes to the policies listed on their website. Until that occurs they should stay banned here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment I'd sooner have WikiExperts in than Wiki-PR, but there's the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem. We understand that, but a lot of the people who have just started something like a social media site for the Bloggui tribe can't see why they're not allowed in, but Facebook is. I don't object to people with what is classed as COI editing - so long as they follow the rules and we get articles and changes that are suitable. Hell, if they are OK, how do we know who they are unless they use a user name like BloggsCoMarketing? How do we set a standard to say WikiForHire can come in, but GetOnWiki can't? Other, that is, than the simple enforcement of the current rules. No corporate accounts, no advertising, notability shown and referenced. Market forces may play a part here - the creators of crap won't get any recommendations from their customers and may be subject to Trading Standards inspection if they claim things they can't deliver, or cash loss if they are foolish enough to offer money-back guarantees... Peridon (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support unban (and monitor for further SOCK violations), the evidence of wrongdoing in this case is almost entirely circumstantial. Yes paid advocate editors tend to violate NPOV when it suits them, but unless some minimum threshold of evidence is presented that NPOV has in fact been violated I find the punishment to be out of keeping with the crime. AKonanykhin had stated in the past that he didn't intend to abide by the suggestions in the weakly-worded COI guideline. And perhaps the most damning evidence against him is that presented by Atethnekos in the SPI case. But I find AKonanykhin to be much more forthright than many in his position. He has disclosed his affiliations, he has credibly stated that he intends to abide by the site policies, and he is seeking to unblock his account rather than simply sockpuppeting which as we all know is infinitely easier than a request for unban. If there were policies against COI-editing or that mandated disclosure then that would be one thing, but under the current rules there is no evidence that what he has actually done is ban-worthy. If Wikipedia wants to impose bans for this kind of editing behavior then it has to get its house in order first. There are currently 3 proposed policies on this topic which I see receiving large opposition. Voters seem to jump at the chance to vote down imperfect proposals rather than to vote up the best of them. The result is that none of these proposals will pass. If we can't get our act together then we can't hold third parties to our heightened personal standards. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I'm strongly sympathetic to the requirement for AKonanykhin to declare all sock and meat accounts too. My unban vote isn't conditional on this, but I do think it is a very reasonable imposition. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not circumstantial, when based on writings of the blocked/banned party - and writings of the blocked/banned party are always the only evidence. Every block/ban decision is a predicted calculation of present and future risks, including logical inferences from the present facts. As for "our house in order," every user has the responsibity for our house's order (see, eg. [50]) -- that's why the Pedia sometimes blocks/bans. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his unsubstantiated claims that if push came to shove he would elect not to heed WP:COI's suggestions are quite clearly circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing. They may possibly be direct evidence of his lack of moral compass or perhaps even his intent to do wrong things, but intent is an exacerbating factor when it comes to COI/NPOV violations and it is rarely if ever an essential element of the wrongdoing. Furthermore he has controverted this evidence with an explanation that he does not read the guidelines as defining his actions as "wrong". I have to say the weak wording of the present guideline sadly strengthens his claims. There's an ocean of difference between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" even when it's written in bold. That's what I mean when I say that we must get our act together before imposing bans like this. Until we can agree as a community that paid-advocacy-editing is forbidden (not just discouraged) as a matter of policy, it's unfair to hold editors to this elevated non-consensus standard even when direct evidence exists (as it doesn't in this case) that they have actually engaged in conflicted editing. I personally think disclosure should be mandatory, but that is only my personal opinion, not yet policy. By the look of the three ongoing proposed policy discussions it will probably never become policy. -Thibbs (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not unsubstantiated claims, they are acknowledged evidence of past and future acts (and whether those acts are discouraged or forbidden makes no difference - either way they should not be done); and they are credible given the statements that were made and the actions they described. As for whether the User was mistaken, that is the risk one takes when one chooses to skate the edge - the lesson there is 'do not skate the edge.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Where have these claims been substantiated? Are there any diffs that can be provided that will show that AKonanykhin bridged the distance between simply saying that he would not take the suggestions offered in COI and actually editing in violation COI/NPOV? Because that's what I mean by "substantiated". His words would have to take substance in the form of edits for me to considered them as factual proof of misdeeds. If no such evidence exist and all we have is intent without a crime then we are punishing thoughts. -Thibbs (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Camper-mann adds promotional material and removes negative information from the Alex Konanykhin article [51]. Camper-mann continues to infringe rules against promotional editing (all related to Alexander Konanykhin), and is subsequently blocked for inserting advertising into Wikipedia [52]. After initially denying any wrongdoing, when confronted with the evidence, User:AKonanykhin says "As for User:Camper-mann, his actions were a very long time ago, in February of 2009. To be honest, I may well have sought out an editor at that time to adjust our pages, long before I ever got into the Wikipedia editing business. Obviously that user did a bad job." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts&diff=577308061&oldid=577187191).

When User:AKonanykhin was first confronted with the concerns of infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user should have come clean, admitted the errors and committed to not doing it again. Why did the user not do this? The answer is obvious: User:AKonanykhin hoped that those users (like User:My very best wishes) previously involved with the Camper-mann etc. investigations would not show up for the discussion and that the evidence of previous misdeeds would not be seen. It was only when these hopes were dashed that the concessions occured. I call this lying: Using falsehoods to gain an advantage. This is an obvious cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL, a policy which rightly enjoins every editor to act honestly. The same is the case with the promise to disclose conflicts of interest. User:AKonanykhin user previously said it "cannot" be done [53], but now says it can. How is it possible that it both can and cannot be done? The answer is obvious: Either User:AKonanykhin was lying then, and hoped that the community would accept that it cannot be done even when he knew it can, or is lying now and hopes that the community will believe that any disclosures he does will be full disclosures, even when he knows that they won't be. Either way, this is another cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are significant chronological holes in this argument. AKonanykhin only made the statement that he would ignore COI's recommendations in the interest of his clients a week or so ago. I don't think he has had time to make good on his claim yet. The diffs you offered actually predate AKonanykhin's having even joined (and thus implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules of) Wikipedia. Likewise as far as I know he hasn't yet had an opportunity to demonstrate that he won't make full disclosures although he said he would so your accusation that he is a liar seems to be as premature as the ban. That AKonanykhin would have violated COI and that he would have failed to make full disclosures remain hunches, assumptions, and speculative projections. Holding him accountable for the actions of another person from nearly 2 years before he even joined the project goes a step too far. I think some kind of actual misdeed should precede a ban, not a gaze into the crystalball to nail him for future crimes. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not say assertorically that User:AKonanykhin is lying on that count. Rather, I say disjunctively that either the user is lying on that count or the user lied when it was said that disclosures cannot be done. How can one sincerely promise to do something but also believe in one's heart that it cannot be done? Such could not be a sincere promise. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's no more a lie than my statement that "It's impossible to force an advocate editor to disclose because we have no policy mandating this" will be a lie once such a policy is adopted. When AKonanykhin made his initial statement he was accurately reflecting his company policies as written. Now that they have been rewritten he has changed his claim, but that doesn't make his previous claim a lie. You're not presenting the full picture. -Thibbs (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unban - the ban was implemented by the community, and I do not see any good reason why this one user should not be subjected to it. Giant Snowman 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, please show me one diff where they have done something wrong to an article. One diff and I will shut up. Aren't you an administrator? Do you look at evidence, or do you just ban people who you don't like? Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the principle of the matter. A ban has been enacted by the community as a whole; the burden is now on you/AKonanykhin to show why the ban should be lifted. FYI, your "do you just ban people who you don't like?" comment makes you sound like a stroppy teenager, or wose. Giant Snowman 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Giantsnowman - was this meant for the section above?--v/r - T P 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, this thread is too bloody long! Giant Snowman 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I could care less whether AKonanykhin gets unbanned. My concern is that we the Wikipedia Communittee act ethically. The ban was improperly placed. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented, and the closing admin misjudged consensus badly. There need to be diffs of wrongful editing. We do not place bans for political reasons. Bans are for repeated disruption of the encyclopedia, not for suspicion or simple dislike for a person. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of puppetry (meat vs. sock being unclear). There is plenty of evidence of folks editing articles related to this person and company with a COI. And there is evidence that he was ignoring COI and plenty of evidence that he intended to continue to do so. How is that not enough for a ban? That said, if he's willing to fix those things and identify all COI (past and future) I'm fine with removing the ban. But this isn't a ban based purely on "suspicion or simple dislike". Hobit (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: - where have I said I dislike this person? FWIW I think he's actually come across rather well. Your lack of good faith is disturbing. Giant Snowman 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients.My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support unban - I'm agreeing with the opening statement of the initial flimsy case, and maintain my view that they shouldn't ever have been banned. Not only that, but the user in question has very clearly made attempts to line themselves up with the majority of the policies. I've seen several users publicly state that they will reject policies as they see fit on their user page/talk pages, without any action; another sign of double standards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the user, but about this user and his company. Did this user and his "friends" follow policies, in particular WP:SOAP? No, they have been heavily involved in promotion using multiple accounts [54], [55], [56], [57], exactly as they suppose to be as PR people. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to do more than show a few 2008 and 2009 transgressions to convince me. As for Eclipsed, the only recent account, almost all of the articles they've written have plenty of references, and I'm not seeing many deleted for being non-notable, or being pure puff pieces. In fact, even AKonanykhin's own article isn't a pure puff piece, given the presence of two immigration trial sections. These articles are less biased than a large amount of those written by non-paid authors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking about their "merits" per WP:IAR, we do not know it, because we do not know who and what edited on their behalf. However, their presence caused significant disruption: these two huge AN discussions and a couple of earlier ANI discussions I remember. That's for sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Since when was the number of AN/ANI discussions even remotely a relevant factor? Several editors in very good standing have had multiple AN/ANI threads opened against them. Should we ban them essentially because other people have issues with them, even though these users are contributing effectively and well? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And a lot of other people were banned, because they created more disruption (unhelpful discussions on ANI and other places) than contributed positively to content. In this particular case, we simply do not know if this organization contributed positively to the project at all (we are talking about organization) because we do not know who their editors are and what they did, just as few people knew much about Wiki-PR, until their actions have been investigated. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to WikiPR are not warranted here, as the two are indeed very different in their approach to policy and Wikipedia in general. No two paid editors are cut from the same cloth and we shouldn't try to categorize them. KonveyorBelt 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Strongest possible oppose I'm seriously thinking of retiring. Wikipedia has fallen so far that now we allow and encourage paid editing and corporate interference with our articles. We no longer have any integrity left. The way we are heading, I no longer have much respect for this place as an independent source, or a project that I can put my time into. I have always admired our integrity and ability to call bullshit when it comes to conflict of interest editing, but in the last several years we have rolled over and let ourselves become nothing more than a giant billboard for hundreds of different companies. The lack of a good COI/Paid Editing policy, policies such as "outing" that are exploited in situations such as this, and strong, deep COI inflitration. This group of editors has abused our sockpuppetry policy, our notability guidelines, and our policy on using Wikipedia for advertising, like hardly anyone else in our history. If there has ever been somebody to ban it is WikiExperts. Under no circumstances should they be allowed anywhere near our articles. Them From Space 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a battleground, and therefore we need not "prevent them at all costs" or worry about "infilteration". KonveyorBelt 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Themfromspace: If you can't make your point without needless profanity, hyperbole, and threats to resign you might consider taking a break. We don't need this sort of diatribe in the midst of a rational conversation. The community is deeply divided over paid editing. We can't even agree on a policy, yet. We need to find common ground. Treating this topic as a battle is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no hyperbole. Infiltration by advertisers, which is happening, is the greatest threat to our integrity that we face outside of the longterm decline in neutral editors. This is something we need to say NO to. Loudly. Anything less is unacceptable. This is not a battleground mentality, it is an antivandalism mentality. Them From Space 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What has changed? Advertisers started "infiltrating" Wikipedia over a decade ago. We have robust policies and processes to deal with that issue. Nothing has changed except a group of users have started a mass hysteria. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unban. Maybe one banned editor soured me on paid editing forever. But what I saw was (and still is, as I'm sure that banned editor is still socking away), was pure advocacy for profit. Doc talk 16:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Doc9871: If you are going to denounce a named, living person, you need evidence. Can you please show me the evidence of sock puppetry? This is a rumor that's been oft repeated but never substantiated. Where's the sockpuppetry report? Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, I was not referring to this editor. I was alluding to MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs), an editor that started out openly promising on elance to create and "maintain" articles for money, creating any notability required as a WP "expert". Sorry for the confusion; I've mentioned MPF in so many comments concerning this issue that I took it for granted that it would be understood that he was who I meant. My bad. Doc talk 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements will be followed. http://www.wikiexperts.us/en/ethics That may address some of the concerns expressed previously. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean this particular banned user, FWIW. I don't see how WikiExperts is going to make much money if they abide by the same rules for content that we all do. Paid editing is usually about promoting your product, ensuring notability and keeping out all the negative stuff. Meh. Doc talk 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We're trying to discuss whether to unban this particular user, not the general principle of paid editing. There are a couple policy proposals pending. Please do help us resolve them! Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Doc - paid editing can also be moving a process along that would otherwise wait for a disinterested editor to come to at some point. For example, removing primary sources used to cite negative information (someone hated their spaghetti, blogged about it, and then updated a Wikipedia entry for an Italian restaurant that managed to escape CSD). Or it could be writing a new article for a person who has plenty of references but has not had anyone on Wikipedia get around to writing an article about yet. Or it could be handling any other perfectly legitimate concern without some silly PR rep bludgeoning it because they don't understand our processes.--v/r - T P 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no difference between this guy's firm and this one. I think we're screwed with companies like this around and more popping up. They are just going to sock to evade detection when they realize that they pretty much have to. Really look at what they promise to do. This sort of paid editing is, IMHO, totally against what the encyclopedia is for. Doc talk 21:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But your making an assumptions and then making a factual comment about the assumptions. ie "A could be B, and B is really bad, so A is really bad."--v/r - T P 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Are you being unfairly treated on Wikipedia? Our Crisis Editing team helps you navigate contentious situations. We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins. And we'll engage on Wikipedia's back end, so you never have to worry about being libeled on Wikipedia." My emphasis on "and admins". Like I said: we're screwed already with this. Doc talk 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And the "mission statement" of WikiExperts is just so wrong. "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Seriously?! "Strangers" can't edit "your" article? An unbelievably stupid fucking joke is what that is. Doc talk 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A user tearing down the first and fourth Pillars of Wikipedia. Perhaps the community should play Delilah in this drama?

This seems to be more of the same behavior from the user. As documented above [58], User:AKonanykhin, when first told of WP:Sock puppetry violations, denied; and then, when shown the evidence, conceded. Now we see here the same behaviour: When first told of COI disclosure requirements, user denied and said this was not contractually possible [59], but now that the community presses, the user has conceded. This seems to be a pattern with this user of using falsehoods to try to get benefits. This is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars. Which of course makes sense: User fully admits to being here not with the end goal of making a better encyclopedia, but with the end goal of making better money. It's become increasingly clear in my mind that when the interests of this encyclopedia get in the way of the interests of this user, this user sacrifices the former for the sake of the latter. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You've misrepresented what they've said. That "is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars." What he said was, that he has rewritten the contract for his future customers which allows for open declaration of a COI and disclosure of whom he is working for. He's still contractually obligated not to reveal the others unless he can contact those customers and negotiate an amendment.--v/r - T P 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If what you are saying about the meaning is true, then either the falsehood is the same as I identify, or it is even worse! Either User:AKonanykhin has dropped, or will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the previous statement that disclosure "cannot" be done was the same falsehood. Or, User:AKonanykhin has neither dropped, nor will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the promise to meet disclosure requirements is a shameless lie! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Or it's not a "shameless lie" at all and your continued rhetoric only serves to obscure and derail factual discussion. Business doesn't happen overnight. A promise from the CEO to change business practices takes time to renegotiate contracts. Your confusing unrealistic idealism with legitimate business expectations. Please stop doing that. Be realistic and quit accusing them of being liars simply because they cannot snap their fingers and make it all happen in an instant.--v/r - T P 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I never intend to use rhetoric, I only intend to give the facts as I see them, to the best of my ability. I don't expect anyone to make anything happen in an instant. I assumed that your interpretation was not the case. According to User:Jehochman, who I take to be trustworthy on this matter, User:AKonanykhin now intends to meet disclosure requirements ([60]). As I said, either they do intend to meet the disclosure requirements, in which case their previous statement that this "cannot" be done, was a falsehood, or they do not intend to meet disclosure requirements, in which case the current promise is indeed a shameless lie. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You yourself are tearing down pillars, namely 3 and 5. KonveyorBelt 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure is not a "requirement". It is a recommendation. They've agreed to follow (not meet) disclosure recommendations (not requirements). WP:COI "you are advised to...provide full disclosure of the connection".--v/r - T P 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the wording Jehochman ascribed to the user: "The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements". If there is a real difference between the meaning of "following requirements" and "meeting requirements", just read "following" whenever I have said "meeting". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Question. When the company says it will abide by the COI guideline, does that mean it will disclose its accounts and require its contractors to refrain from editing articles directly (as the guideline advises)? Or is it offering something more restricted than that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Same here. @Jehochman, I'll believe it when I see it. So now their ethics page says "including Conflict of Interests (COI) disclosure requirements" although their "Why us" page continues to promise their clients confidentiality. There's enormous scope for gaming this. As you and several others have been at pains to point out, our COI guidelines don't explicitly require disclosure. However, quite a few of the editors in this discussion who do not outright oppose lifting the ban, require declarations of COI from this group of editors, and for well-founded reasons. None of their editors are banned from editing their talk pages. It would be a good start if each of them declared their conflict of interest on their talk pages now and AKonanykhin linked to those talk pages on his talk page so that this can be verified. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired of being a middleman in this discussion. I'm not his spokesman. Please go talk to AKonanykhin directly. This is why it was so stupid to ban him. It's hard for concerned editors to talk to the guy when he can't even edit his talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

His block log doesn't indicate that his talk page access has been revoked, and indeed, he has edited it 4 times it since he was blocked. I'm also quite sure he's reading this discussion, as are his employees. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support unban. I have yet to encounter a cogent argument for the position that paid editing creates a bias that is somehow more problematic than any of the other myriads of biases all editors are influenced by, and, so justifies special treatment. I see no reason to address any particular bias, including this particular bias. Regardless of what an editor's biases are (and it's a matter of what the biases are, not if there are any), what matters is that the edits are made in compliance with NPOV and our other content-oriented guidelines and polices. WP:AGF, anyone? And, yes, paid editors can edit in good faith. --B2C 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, an editor who was simply paid can edit in good faith. However, an editor who was paid to conduct propaganda type editing (and that is what PR companies do) should not be allowed to edit per WP:SOAP. Well, perhaps they might edit per WP:IAR, but only if they openly disclose their affiliation prior to any incidents resulting in blocks, such as promotional editing of Mr. Konanykhin biography (see my links above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose (of unban)
- The current proposal is based on the proposition that, since there were few diffs given during the banning discussion, the rules on banning were ignored. There are no rules that require diffs during the banning discussion. There was clear and solid evidence -AK's own statements made in the media and posted on his own website, that he had violated the rules of Wikipedia hundreds of times, and that he intended to keep on violating our rules. His statements on this page were enough to show meat-puppeting. The ban was quite proper.
- I don't find User:AKonanykhin's statement that he would follow the rules in the future at all convincing. There are no details showing that he knows what he did wrong. There is no acknowledgement or reporting of the history of what he's done wrong, so that we can't easily correct his advertising and promotion. He needs to disclose his clients and contractors, and give dates and articles. His claim that he can't disclose because of contracts he's signed is self-serving, and any such contract provisions would be unenforceable as it is public policy in the US that promotional and advertising claims must disclose the relationship between the sponsor and the person making the claim (if it is not obvious that the person making the claims (here- the editor) is working for the advertiser).
- Konanykhin's website wikiexperts.us is currently breaking the law by making false advertising claims. For example he currently promises his clients to "Increase the visibility and credibility of your company, brand, or product by creating or improving your Wikipedia presence." He cannot deliver on these promises for at least two reasons: 1) promotion is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia; and 2) he and his employees are currently banned from editing on Wikipedia. If he continues to make false advertising claims on his own website and break the US law on deceptive advertising, even after he is banned here, how can we expect him to follow the rules here. At a minimum, he needs to take down his advertising of Wikipedia editing services on his own site, before we can even consider unbanning him.
- Two more example from wikiexperts.us of deceptive advertising (the first also promises POV editing)
  - "Article Monitoring and Repair: When someone edits your article, WikiExperts are alerted immediately. Our staff reviews the article to check whether it is still objective, representative and above all, not unduly damaging to your brand’s image. If needed, the changes are reversed."
  - "Updates: Just as your business is dynamic, so too should be your Wikipedia entry. Every time your company’s situation changes, we will update your article, applying the same care to keep it compliant with Wikipedia policies." (How can he update an article - compliant with Wikipedia policies - when he is banned?)

Smallbones<subj>(smalltalk) 20:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting argument. However, he acts rationally. Why change their web site? He overcame Russian justice, INS, FBI and US Department of Justice. Sure thing, he can deal with Wikipedia. I am looking forward seeing him and his people around. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Why change their web site?" because he is breaking the law if he doesn't. It's pretty simple. Is your argument really that he should not be held to Wikipedia's rules and US law, like any other person, simply because he has won some cases in court? It seems like an incredibly cynical argument - "because we can get away with it" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am simply trying to explain why they did not bother to fix their web site (yet) - from their perspective. They think they will edit here no matter what, I believe. Let's see if this unblock passes. If it does, I am right. If it does not, they will do something else (possibly new statements and yet another request for unblock). My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Qualified support for an unban. On the one hand, I (and I believe I speak for many here) don't like the idea of unbanning known paid editors—paid editing is distasteful and disruptive, and can be fairly assumed to carry a certain level of bad faith. I say that last part in that the ultimate goal of a paid editor is to get paid, rather than improve the encyclopedia—that's my distinction between "bad" paid editing and acceptable paid editing (e.g. the reward board, or paid Wikipedian-in-Residence positions at GLAMs, et cetera). That being said, given that we cannot prevent all paid editing, it is in our interests to bring it "above-ground" as much as possible. By allowing paid editors some freedom when they disclose their actions and are subject to scrutiny, we ultimately gain greater control over paid editing's influence because it can be measured and regulated more effectively. It also gains us greater leeway to penalize paid editors who try to slip under the radar and fail, since there'd be an established best practice that they are demonstrably trying to circumvent.
The freedom that I believe paid editors should enjoy when their work is disclosed and meets our standards is tempered by greater freedom on our part to block and ban paid editors who do not meet these standards. If a paid editor is found to also be operating "underground" or operating sock puppets, etc., that should result in an immediate and permanent ban. We cannot tolerate behaviour that is manifestly in bad faith. For that matter, if paid editors produce poor-quality work, we should not be tolerant of that, because it can produce so much clean-up work for our unpaid volunteers. I'd support a "sticky proposed deletion" process analogous to those for BLPs.
I'm rambling, so TL;DR: Unban this time, and let's move to incentivizing good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour more consistently in the future, please. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply a poor-quality work is not a forbidden, unless an editor is utterly incompetent. It does not really matter that these editors are paid. However, they work for a propaganda/PR company. That should be forbidden per WP:SOAP.My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support unban, not because I like PR companies editing, but because we can either A unban and have all PR accounts disclosed, or B don't unban and drive PR accounts underground. It's very simple. Ross Hill (talk) 00:49, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite the disclaimer on their "ethics page": "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Does anyone here seriously not see how this statement sums it all up? It's astounding. Doc talk 07:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for Disclosure

What if: We have the editors who work for WikiExperts create separate COI accounts, like WMF staff members, that they use while making edits for WikiExperts? For example, if I were employed by them (which is not to say that I am, because I'm not), I would use User:TParis (WikiExperts) for all paid editing by WikiExperts and User:TParis for all of my normal editing. Using the WMF Staff member model, this could make it very clear which edits are by WikiExperts. The way it stands now, if we identify who their editors and customers are, we still do not know if each, and which, individual edits are being paid for or not. This solution would take all the ambiguity away. Thoughts?--v/r - T P 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as being maybe workable. That is provided these individuals actually do any editing that isn't for pay. There could be a bit of a blurry line, though, if I as a paid editor (which I am not) were to, perhaps, try to add some information on the topic of my COI to marginally related articles. An example might be trying to add a link to my business' building (which may or may not be prominent in the community) to the article on the city in which it exists, or something like that. Such edits might be seen as problematic if the editor, reasonably, thought the building should be mentioned, which perhaps it might be, but others, just as reasonably, might disagree regarding the amount or location of such content. In such cases, to what degree might COI be considered relevant, and, as a secondary concern, to what degree might, potentially, problematic paid editors (which would probably include only a comparatively small number) seek to excuse such problematic edits with this perhaps dubiously defensible reason? John Carter (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This leads directly to witch hunting. If an editor sees they are paid 10/10 times thy will revert. If they explicitly state in their names they are a paid pr firm they will be reported to ANI and generally harassed. KonveyorBelt 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. I've been paid to write articles and I've even managed to get them put on DYK: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dennis_Lo.--v/r - T P 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been my experience the Wikipedia community is actually protective of COI editors who follow the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Konveyor, you keep making claims about disclosure leading to harassment, but you never point to any specific examples. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User:CorporateM is out and proud and manages to get the job done. No doubt it is very much more uncomfortable and difficult to do it that way than to simply hide, but he/she nevertheless behaves ethically. Like TP, above. We could make it easier for them by reviewing their talk page requests and WP:AFC submissions in a timely manner. But we can't welcome a team here that openly defies community-agreed norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not persuaded that we actually need it to be part of the username for the account, the way that "(WMF)" is used, but I do believe strongly that some kind of identification is needed, perhaps by way of userpage disclosure. I don't really buy the argument directly above, about inevitable reverting of good edits, because that's what discussion and consensus are for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. Might be a good way to go with all paid editing. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I think this ban can be lifted if they provide list of all their accounts (here and right now), so that everyone will be able to check what exactly they are doing. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Other paid editors, such as WWB, have used this method successfully. Steven Walling • talk 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - I agree that the affiliation of paid editor should be in his/her username; disclosure upfront (like scientists with COI do in their scientific papers) is the way to go... don't bury the information. As volunteer editors our time here is precious, and I for one don't want to be suspicious of everybody I am working on an article with, to the point where I go check their pages to see who they are when there are disagreements. I think too that all their paid editing accounts should be listed on one page, so that it is easy to find the relevant editors and audit their compliance, for any editor or admin who wants to see how well they are keeping their promises (assuming we un-ban them) Responding to User:Konveyor Belt. I know what it is like to be witch-hunted, so please know that I am sympathetic with that concern. But we need to work toward compromise and consensus, and it would be helpful if you acknowledged that there is a big chunk of the community that is really concerned about paid editing - we need to work toward solutions everybody can live with and avoid exaggerations like "10/10 times they would be reverted." I hope you can see that.... Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as a general solution in such cases, but not in this particular case, where I think the ban should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - every paid editor should indicate their allegiance otherwise it constitutes violation of WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a violation of sock unless the employer asks all its employees to work together to subvert consensus. If there are 100 employees of Apple editing Wikipedia, which there probably are, should we block all of them for sock puppetry (starting with User:Alison who freely discloses her Apple affiliation)? Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense. Now, if we can just get User:Dickhead (Bigot) and User:Nice person (Acupuncturist) to fall into line when editing race or acupuncture articles, respectively, life will be much simpler here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Really this sounds no stronger a policy or guideline than just requiring the user to create an account with that companies name in it like, oh...I don't know..User:Arturo at BP and follow that example. But they should still not be allowed to edit, but can make drafts and suggestions on the talk page. As I understand it, TParis is suggesting we just allow the paid editors to just edit any article with a new user right....one that we have been attempting to fight against. No, I'm not for allowing paid editing on Wikipedia, no offense to those who have admitted to having already done so. I see this as a way that more experienced editors could easily take advantage of their expertise and experience to profit from and....I don't know that anyone can talk me down from that position but please try, I am all ears. Volunteer should be our goal and if someone is slipping through our policy cracks by editing an article specifically because they have been hired to do so....well, I would think we would want to fill that crack, not widen it.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Are you offering the example of Arturo at BP (talk · contribs) as a good example of a paid editor? Because it is moderately disclosed, and has no mainspace edits? I think it looks good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Why not run a test case on this? Make it optional, and get feedback from them and the community after some time. We can then broaden or scrap the idea based on its success. Contrary to Konveyor Belt's claim above, a named account would seem more trustworthy to me; the editor is choosing to be transparent and is obviously knowledgeable about our policies and his responsibility to manage his COI. I don't know if requiring them to have named accounts is the best plan when we don't have such a policy in place for other paid editors, so I'd oppose a requirement on those grounds. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would only argue that we do have such a policy or guideline in place for other paid editors. In fact we have, what I thought was a pretty clear set of policies, not perfect, but getting stronger and clearer on the subject.

Disclosure polices

Per WP:ISU "Usernames implying shared use":

...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", "LoveTrammelArt", etc.

Remember that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of username. The conflict of interest guideline advises all users to exercise caution if editing articles about businesses, organizations, products, or other subjects that they are closely connected to. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's advice on editing with a conflict of interest.

"

Per WP:NOPAY "Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing":

If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an employee, owner or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited.

And of course Declaring an interest:

Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. The benefits of this are that most editors will appreciate your honesty and may try to help you; you lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself, and public relations professionals may be required to abide by code of ethics, such as the GA code of ethics or PRSA code of ethics. The disadvantage of declaring your interest is that people outside Wikipedia, such as reporters, may identify you and generate negative publicity for you, your group or your company. Some COI declarations have the effect of announcing your real name (see WP:REALNAME). Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers.

::Example of disclosure.

I think it is safe to say we have a few policies in place for this very thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. Every paid editor should disclose their COI. This is a very straightforward way of doing so and is about as good as it gets. MER-C 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support TParis' line of thinking. These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them. A User:Username (paid editor) account would be the best disclosure for edits to mainspace. I would not insist on having the tagged alt account linked to the main account, as I think there would be lots of paid editors not brave enough to do this. I would have untagged, undisclosed paid-to-edit accounts declared preemptively banned, with their work subject to WP:CSD#G5. I think only this will motivate compliance from the majority of paid editors. I would allow tagged accounts the freedom to edit as per any editor, and to restrict their editing privileges if they edit poorly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey SmokeyJoe. Is the statement: "These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them." something of a false argument? We have a set of guidelines and policy in place and have been through a good deal of discussion from the BP article in regard to paid editing and paid advocacy editing. I am not sure if I understand the logic of the proposal if not to simply allow editing of the article itself by creating a new user right or user category. I would say if we are allowing them the ability to gain financially against the very policies we have in place right now and in mass to the very question of meat puppetry, we should probably hold off any decision until we have a Village pump proposal made to the full community. If there is consensus for some special user group with the point blank disclaimer embedded permanently into the editors name...then won't they also want to have an alternative account for when they are not being paid? How far will this really take us? Will everyone be allowed two alternative accounts? If not, how does one get this new user right? What are the criteria for it? If you get it and don't have a regular account would you be able to work around the all editors being able to have double accounts...one for volunteer work and one for payment from an outside entity for the best price I can get? Can this be be implemented without the foundation and a full look into any implications on community reaction and editor retention. Would legal need to look into this first. This sounds like something that would need a straw poll, and go through a more thorough process of community vetting and consensus to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. The statement is my working premise. There are some high profile admissions of undeclared alternative accounts used for paid editing. The existing policy on paid editing is weak. It is discouraged. Disclosure of COI is encouraged. They are not forbidden/required. I think "requiring" disclosure of paid editing is a reasonable small step worth trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think one step is to tighten the policy to require disclosure of paid advocacy and paid editing. I think it is a step too far to then..."Release The Kraken" upon the community by then saying just by a stamp of disclosure we should let them edit articles. Disclosure and proper COI editing is not direct and it may not be exactly what companies and editors may want in regards to paid editing policy but I can't support actually giving them a green light with the collateral of the whole thing being alternate accounts, mass groups of editors from different companies with different agendas and a political nightmare of campaigns and PR firms etc, this will attract. This isn't really just a matter of one company, but allowing everyone the right to do the same thing...and they do have the same right to do what this company does. Now we have to decide how to react to it. I agree. We should require disclosure of paid editing. I do not agree that we should allow paid editors to edit articles directly.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Agreed, we should require disclosure. When disclosed, should we allow them to edit mainspace? If it is a hard no, does this mean we require them to post edit requests on the talk page, and will these be ignored? My problem with a hard no is that they will reject the deal and stay underground. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per the name of the company. The Foundation accounts are used to speak with some sort of authority. Non-regulars at AN will see (WikiExperts) and think these are more expert than the other poor sods who just have plain user names. Peridon (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose Proposal for Disclosure. What's next? A special user account for editing political articles identifying your political affiliation (B2C (Whig Party))? And another for editing religious articles (B2C (agnostic))? And yet another for one's favorite football team when editing football articles (B2C (49ers))? And, of course, everyone should be required to disclose their place of residence in order to identify nationalistic biases, etc. (B2C (Antarctic)).
There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases. There is no reason to identify paid editors, ever.
Focus on content, folks, not the editors. It is that simple. --B2C 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

" There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases". Then find ways to deal with other means of bias too. That's like saying we shouldn't block vandals because we can't block all disruptive editors. When we can deal with obvious forms of bias, we should. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you're underestimating the effect of all other kinds of bias, and thus overestimating the relative significance of this one kind of bias. We deal with all bias in the same way: WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. The beauty of WP is bias does not matter! WP all about putting all of our biases (and we all have them!) aside and creating NPOV notable content that is well-founded in reliable sources. This whole issue reveals how little understood and appreciated this aspect of WP is, even by very experienced editors. Sad, really. --B2C 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Per declaration here [61]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Another Proposal: Certification Course

I'm just full of ideas this morning. What if we organized a certification course? It wouldn't be a precursor to editing, nor would it prevent a paid editor who is advocating a POV from getting blocked, but what if we offered this course that companies like WikiExperts can enroll their employees in and they'd get a userbox identifying that they've been through this course and have a basic understanding of policy? I'd imagine it could be modeled after our current mentorship programs. It would go a long way toward trusting folks.--v/r - T P 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Also liking this idea. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the past, Wikiexperts.us tends to hire subcontractors with prior WP editing experience, and often with considerable experience. It isn't surprising, in that new editors tend to make more mistakes which see the articles deleted. So it isn't lack of knowledge of the processes that is generally the problem. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is probably why they are successful. Their editors are pre-certified. Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the idea was more general than just Wikiexperts. I'm talking about paid editor companies all around.--v/r - T P 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so. A provocative question: would we rather have a bunch of bungling corporate marketing people edit Wikipedia, or would we prefer that they hire professional help who know how to write to our standards? Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're serious about this idea, then the objective should be a program for *all* new users, an area where we already have severe deficiencies. NPOV is the key issue for all new users, whether they're paid advocates, paid editors, unpaid advocates, or just want to add something about their favourite TV show. The mentorship program is on its last legs due to a lack of volunteers. The idea is a good one, but it needs to work within our existing resources and target actual problems for the project, not just the perceived ones or the ones that are currently high-profile. We've had paid advocacy here for more than 10 years (my own first encounter with it was in 2007, and Wikipedia was a key part of a multi-pronged publicity campaign), so this is not a new problem. Risker (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

New users shouldn't have to slog through a bureaucracy just to edit. It must be fairly intimidating to have to go through a complex course just to fix a typo. After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we should try to keep it this way as much as possible. KonveyorBelt 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a question, then, Risker. Would anyone object if I, and maybe a few other volunteers (or someone else entirely, I won't patent the idea), were to "incorporate" a small business as a 'school' of sorts for these types. Off-wiki and what not, but with the sole purpose of teaching these paid-editor types, those whom are not already savvy, on how to edit Wikipedia. Could also teach public relations teams for companies how to do it right. Would that solve the problem?--v/r - T P 02:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The encylopeadia anyone can edit as long as they have the money or connections, eh? So you want to create a business enterprise to teach WP policies, of course for a fee. I am aware you in fact do not, but this will be the logical end result. As I said above. the project is doomed if money becomes a major criteria. No money should be involved, no one should make a penny from WP. We are all unpaid volunteers. See my proposal for a purely business enterprise related WP below. All monies recycled into local companies enviroments on a charitable basis. They would have to sign up to this explicitly. It would be hived off from the real project. I am taking it to Meta, and I think it will generate some support. Irondome (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm more or less weighing the idea in general as such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here. However, if the community were to see it in a good light, we might be able to determine a route that would give us the 'feel goods' needed to make paid editing in a limit function acceptable. Money and connections couldn't possibly affect the encyclopedia itself, as such a company wouldn't edit the encyclopedia. All it would be is to teach policies and then cut those editors lose. Then they are on their own and liable to the very same policies as everyone else. All of fee would get them would be knowledge of how Wikipedia works to give them the best chance to be successful within policy. I, personally, would charge to teach others this. I'd need to cover expenses such as a gotoMeeting subscription, a website, and business fees. But it's an idea. It's also an idea I'm not attached to, I already work two jobs and I don't need a third, so if anyone else likes the idea they are welcome to run with it. Wikipedia is part of the 'free culture' but this is a sensible business niche and reason should trump idealism.--v/r - T P 03:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here This is exactly the attitude that got Wikiexperts and WikiPR into trouble when they started ignoring policy. KonveyorBelt 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I need to take a shit, can I get your approval for that? Creating companies related to Wikipedia is not the same thing as creating companies to edit Wikipedia. So no, it's not the same attitude. Take your rhetoric to someone who wants a bite.--v/r - T:P 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If taking a shit was an inherent, natural part of Wikipedia, it'd be approved. Process is important. If your business is designed to make money off Wikipedia without approval there would be a problem. Businesses are a natural canvas for soapboxing and MEAT. KonveyorBelt 22:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the militant-ignorance that is causing the problem we have now that managed to site ban a user without evidence of misbehavior (no, meat puppetry has not been proven). People make money off Wikipedia all the time. Our content license is specifically written to allow it. I could print and bind the entire encyclopedia and sell it. So no, making money off Wikipedia is not disallowed. Making money teaching people how to use Wikipedia is actually a great idea, doesn't affect content in the slightest other than improving the general quality of new editors, and the only reason not to do it is a fear of threat to the "free culture" that permeates throughout this project.--v/r - T P 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Making money off of a nonprofit organization is not disallowed, yes, but it is completely unethical. It certainly affects content. For example, someone could be assigned to add a part to an article by you or someone else, and that part contains POV material, although the student doesn't know it. Who is at fault here? The horse or the master? KonveyorBelt 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't been around very long. People make money often reusing Wikipedia content. It's specifically licensed to allow it. The only restriction on Wikipedia content is that it has to be attributed and shared in the same fashion. But you can bundle it on a CD and sell the CD and make a profit. There is nothing unethical about it. What credentials to you have to make an ethical determination here?--v/r - T P 00:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Konveyor Belt: I've made money from Wikipedia. To be specific, directly from the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia. I had a several month long contract with them, one that paid quite decently. Although they no longer employ me, the Wikimedia Foundation still employs quite a number of other people. I see problems with unethical paid editing practices, but I think saying making any money whatsoever related to Wikipedia is unethical is going too far.. if no one made money off of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist. If nothing else, a site of our size could not realistically survive without some full time tech people, and it'd be remarkable if we could find enough solid tech people willing to work for free. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a relatively simple corporate editing training module already on this site? I thought I saw something like that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged. Admins get your mop ready, ... and mop it away. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We will have to get you a mop of your own, one of these days

-- Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Caught up as of right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Armbrust isn't an admin! Good grief. I hate that overused expression, so much that I won't use it, but this should be rectified?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

He keeps getting picked up for edit warring, alas. If he could just keep that block log clear for a year or so, I will nom him myself. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with svg image

File:Information orange.svg is now in use on level 2 warning templates and needs to be brought over from the Commons and fully protected. I'm not sure – is there a special technique for copying and uploading an svg file? -- Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Zad68 has given it full protection. Diannaa, would you please download the image from Commons and attempt to upload it here? If you can, that will prove that we need to do it; if you can't, that will prove that we don't need to. I can't directly test it myself — since I'm an admin, I have the ability to override page protection, so I can't see whether non-admins can modify and/or overwrite it. PS Oops, never mind, Diannaa; I assumed by your request that you weren't an admin yourself. Would some kindly non-admin please attempt to fulfill my request? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to download it - it's an svg file, which is kinda different. As soon as I try to copy the image it converts it to a png image file. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're using Internet Explorer, rightclick the image and select "Save Target As"; this will download the original SVG and put it where you want it. However, since you're an admin, there's no real point, because you're able to override the blacklist just like I am. I'm asking for a non-admin to test it, so we can see whether we even need to worry about a local upload. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on this. It will require a new name, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually not. I'm asking you to attempt to upload it at the current name, which is presently protected; whatever happens, please come back and report your results. If protection prevents you from uploading it, please create the image description page with absolutely nothing except a {{db-g2}} template. If protection prevents you from doing that, we won't need to do any more protection, because vandals won't be able to hurt the image. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The image needs to be uploaded locally (by an admin since the local page is protected) because otherwise a vandal can change the image on wikipedia commons and that change will automatically be reflected on English wikipedia, irrespective of the protection of the en-wiki page. (Note that the commons page is not protected and en-wiki admins have no direct control on that)

@NeilN: The image can be uploaded to the local wikipedia page (again, by an admin) under the same name, because "If a file of the same name exists on both Wikipedia and Commons, the Wikipedia file will be displayed." (see WP:FILE). Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Both upload buttons (for en and commons) are greyed out when it's the same name. They are active when I change the file name. Any attempt to edit the description sends me to Commons. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done it. Abecedare is right about the images. Protection here if the file is not here is useless. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to replace this file [62]. Error message: "This image name or media file name is protected." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I was able to upload a copy over it a minute before @Crisco 1492: increased the protection. (I couldn’t do it with the wizard, and I had to brush off a warning.) The second time, a couple of minutes later, it didn’t work: the warning had escalated to the above error. Please delete my upload, somebody, as I don’t think I can any more.—Odysseus 1479 03:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because you uploaded between the time I uploaded locally and protected the page. Don't see a need to delete your upload as it is the same file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: wasn't just restoring the deleted versions an option here, especially as it's the same file in the deleted history that was moved over to Commons? -- curious as to whether there are any technical issues here as I don't work on image deletions. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Original wasn't stored under that title, by the looks of it. I don't see any deleted revisions. Restoring the deleted files instead of uploading new ones (if at a different title) would mean any subst: templates would not be protected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, weird as I see six deleted revisions and two file uploads there. Perhaps my staying away from images is a wise decision after all. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/File:Information orange.svg has six deleted revisions, including two file uploads. Crisco, did you check the page history? I was momentarily confused until I realised that it existed locally, so there would be a history tab and wouldn't be the "deleted revisions" blue link that appears for Commons-only images. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I did open the history. I didn't see that last night. (Maybe I was overly tired.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help figuring out what to do about in-Wikipedia copyvio

If you look at History of Lower Saxony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it seems to have been moved/merged to another article here[[63] and renamed Theodor Gottfried Liesching. Then recently he was given his own article[64] and a large amount of material was restored to this page and it was renamed again.[65]. Now this is clearly copyvio, presumably from our own articles, but there's no way of knowing where it comes from. The editor, Izraías (talk · contribs) didn't discuss this anywhere and also made other page moves I don't quite get, and I'd like help sorting it out. I think History of Lower Saxony needs reverting to remove the copyvio, and then if anything is replaced (hopefully with a discussion) it needs to be clearly attributed so it isn't copyvio. I'll notify the editor. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So, the original page was Württemberg; then it was moved to Theodor Gottfried Liesching which in its turn was moved to History of Lower Saxony. Thus, Theodor Gottfried Liesching was effectively "deleted" and Talk:Württemberg ended up in Talk:History of Lower Saxony. There is indeed copyvio from our own articles (particularly, Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg, House of Welf). (Note that -Ilhador-, Jack Bufalo Head, and Izraías are apparently the same editor—already blocked many times before for copyright violations and sockpuppeting; I'm about to open an SPI and then maybe organize a ban.) I created a new article for T.G. Liesching in order to avoid copyvio but I would like to request to restore the old one [66]. If I'm not mistaken no article about the History of Lower Saxony existed before -Ilhador-'s meddling; so if it's a copyvio from our own articles it should be turned into a redirect to Lower Saxony. The difficult task, though, is to avoid eliminating any page histories. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

G11 deletion is normally appropriate in egregious cases of internal copyvio, but this is complex enough that we really shouldn't start off with any G11s. Let's figure out the page history and then make any necessary deletions, which I suspect will require more extensive use of G6 for history merging than G11. I'll be happy to try to help when I have time later. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I've spent a bit of time looking over the articles, and I'm quite confused. There's no way I'm going to do anything without input from others, lest I accidentally make things worse. Let me propose the following actions (NB — "history" is page history; "History" is the article about Lower Saxony):

Delete History of Lower Saxony, Theodor Gottfried Liesching, and Württemberg under G6
Restore the Liesching edits from History, move them to Liesching, and restore the deleted Liesching edits
Restore the Württemberg edits from History, move them to Württemberg, and restore the deleted Württemberg edits
Restore History
This would resolve the history splitting for Liesching and Württemberg, if I'm understanding rightly. After that, we need to deal with the stuff that's been merged into History.
Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Duchy
I don't see anything in History that derives from Welf. Unless I'm missing something, we can ignore Welf.
Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Electorate

At this point, we're left with a rump: the first 1½ sentences of subsection 6.1 and perhaps subsection 6.2. It was added by a disruptive sock, and it might be copied from somewhere else. Let's delete it with G5 and a dash of IAR. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a further complication since Württemberg and Baden (effectively "deleted" by -Ilhador- [67]) were eventually rewritten from scratch by User:Fadesga. Also note that History of Lower Saxony could also redirect to History of Saxony. Give me one more day to check if the suggested solution can work. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Single purpose promotional accounts

Because of the current high profile discussions about Wikipedia and paid editing, I am becoming increasingly sensitive as I patrol new pages to fully formed articles with a substantially promotional tone, yet concealed as well referenced articles, but created as the only contribution of a new editor, one who only edits in this area, or even this article. I'm sure you don't need examples, but they are easy to find.

Because of the fully formed nature of the articles, created with a skill that takes almost every ordinary editor a while to learn, I smell sockpuppetry. Because they are SPAs I see no easy way for the ordinary editor to reach a conclusion. I suspect that an experienced sock hunter and the checkuser tool is required to sniff them out. However, I see no way of reporting what I might term a suspicious editor.

I hope to catalyse a discussion, here or elsewhere, that will create a place for we ordinary editors to place suspicious editors for investigation. Some will be innocent. Good. Others will lead to a PR organisation, perhaps the same PR organisation. The outcome of WIkipedia's discussions about paid editing will be relevant to this class of editor.

Such an investigation platform ought to make it easier for our hard working SPI clerks and others to form an educated view about the extent of the problem. Fiddle Faddle 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to identify traits of such editors, but I wonder per WP:Beans if we ought to be doing so in the open. I'm a big fan of conducting as much business as possible in the open, but some things appear to be legitimate exceptions. (It occurs to me that WP:Beans isn't quite the right metaphor I need a beans inverse or !Beans or something like that.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation statement can help how you approach this, particularly the parts about "required disclosure" and the part about violations of terms of use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful, Sue Gardner has less than a newbie's understanding of the English Wikipedia. She knows how to run a non-profit, not how to edit Wikipedia.--v/r - T P 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disrespecting Sue Gardner is irrelevant and gratuitous, it is the Foundation she is speaking for and the Pedia runs because of them; they have tons of experience here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? That must be why they don't hire community liasons.--v/r - T P 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a tool that can identify near-orphan articles predominantly edited by an SPA account? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, creating multiple throw-away accounts is a common sock-puppeteer and PR editing tactics. A trow-away account is not just an SPA, but an SPA active for a short period of time to make a very limited set of edits (a lot of such accounts are actually legit). The most efficient approach would be an automatic global check of all throw-away accounts to see which of them originated from the same IP address - under a supervision by Checkuser. Some of detected accounts would have to be blocked as sockpuppet accounts; contributions by others would have to be posted somewhere and checked. Unfortunately, such method contradicts the currently accepted philosophy of user-checking (as a privacy violation; I personally do not think so). With advent of numerous PR people around here, this will be necessary, I believe.My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See [68] and [69]. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks to everyone and especially Dennis Brown who helped to fix this problem. I am afraid we will see more of this in the future.My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel

older discussion

I'm here with a simple issue. While attempting to continue a major overhaul and merging of Dungeons & Dragons content I noticed that Folken de Fanel made 36 redirects in the court of 22 minutes from 23:42 on October 4 to 00:04 October 5.[70] Each of these redirects bore the edit summary "restore merge per a previous consensus". Whether or not the previous consensus from 3 years ago is valid, the edit summary is very misleading because Folken de Fanel did not carry out any merger at all. It was just a blank and redirect, resulting in dozens of pages being redirect loops, breaking over a hundred pages of links and removing a large amount of content under a misleading edit summary. I've gone and rollbacked these redirects; not on the grounds of contesting them as "keeps", but on keeping the content up while an actual merging process goes on. I have zero intention of keeping these pages beyond the time needed for merging in. I ask that these pages remain so Folken de Fanel does not promptly re-redirect them out and threaten me with ANI. I am not seeking any action against Folken; I do not have the time or energy to argue. These pages will be likely all gone within the week. Thank you for reading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirecting does not remove content. If these are truly pages that were up for AFD years ago, and the results were merge + redirect, and no one bothered to merge in those three years, FdF is in the right to simply redirect - any editor can still get at the old content and add what is necessary. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

They were not AFDed, they were discussed briefly three years ago in that link. Mass breaking content including links and entire groups of pages is not "merging"; Folken de Fanel did not merge the content as his edit summary stated. I've already begun redirecting them again. But I must sleep and more will be taken care of tomorrow. Also, the original mergers were contentious and not redirected out or had additional discussion prior to Folken's re-reverting.[71] If you check that link, you will see I have re-redirected (kept categories) the page out again. This is a brief and temporary solution to not break the rest of the Forgotten Realms content area. Whether or not I can recover the content in four-five additional steps means little when hundreds of readers will miss out unnecessarily. I find this option the best route and not deter, confuse or otherwise hinder readers who seek out the page's content until I can tidy the rest up on a list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a better justification for your use of WP:Rollback? I don't see that it was necessary or allowed by the guideline. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: really? Chris has been rapidly taking care of all this in the last couple of weeks. And you've no problem with someone using a clearly false edit summary? Oyi. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

How is "restore merge per a previous consensus" "clearly false"? I don't see an implication in "restore merge" that FdF is redoing the merges at the list article. Talk:List of Forgotten Realms deities/Archive 1#Merge with individual deity and deity group articles is a valid wikilink to an archived discussion. The articles I spot-checked are in the discussed list. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons: #1 the articles were never merged, just redirected as far as I can tell. I see no evidence of any attempt to merge either years ago or this time. #2 Even if there was a merge at some point, redirecting isn't "restoring a merge" because, again, there is no merging being done. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC) clarified Hobit (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Redirecting without copying anything is allowed by the last paragraph of WP:Merging#Reasons for merger. The wording dates back to 2005 and 2007. You participated in the 2010 discussion, and you had 3 years to raise the issue with Neelix or edit the articles directly, as FdF pointed out. Requiring FdF to investigate and be responsible for Neelix's 3-year-old edits is unreasonable. 2) An edit summary like "revert to redirect per a previous consensus" would be more precise, but I think that describing FdF's "restore merge" as "clearly false" – in the context of your other comments, implying willful deception – is a gross exaggeration. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Merging does not require any material to be brought into the main article, if none of that material is new or appropriate, as long as that fact is checked. And as long as it is simply a redirect and not a delete, recreate and redirect, the content before the merge+redirect can be reviewed without admin assistance and brought in if the editor believes the fact was missed. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting assertion, but completely unsupported by WP:MERGE: "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page. Merging creates a redirect from the source page(s) to the destination page, with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page." If no content was copied, then it wasn't a merger, it was a redirection without merging. While a merge includes a redirect as part of the process, what differentiates a merge from a redirect is the copying and pasting. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting bit of wiki-lawyering there. Don't think it's been merged properly? WP:SOFIXIT. It's in the edit history. Which is still there. So, you know, not a deletion. --Calton | Talk 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you can actually merge, though, since all but one I've looked at were entirely sourced to TSR or Wizards of the Coast publications. In other words, nothin' but primary sources. --Calton | Talk 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Still not the point. There were 36 edit summaries that claimed he was merging stuff. No merging actually happened. He could have said "redirecting" and we'd not be here. But he didn't and we are. There is a strong difference between merging and redirecting, that's not wiki-lawyering.Hobit (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. Redirecting an article to another where the appropriate encyclopedic content - in the eye of the person doing this - is already present, is a merge; the topic that was redirected still has content available about it in WP. It would not be a merge if the person redirected the article to a target article that made zero mention of the topic that was redirected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that merging something, in the Wikipedia meaning of the word, doesn't actually involve merging anything? While Wikipedia certainly has terms of art that are like that, WP:MERGE says quite the opposite. So your definition doesn't seem to work for the English meaning of the word "merge" nor the Wikipedia meaning. Could you explain why you think your definition is correct? Hobit (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The WP definition, which matches the real world version is "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page." Doesn't say anything about retaining information from every page involved in the process (unless you're wikilawyering the language). The only outcome that I would expect of a merge is that the topic that is merged in is not reduced to a single mention in passing: whether this means the topic has its own section, paragraphs, one or more sentences, or a line in a table, it doesn't matter (a mention in passing would simply require a redirect). If this means that information from one page is duplicative or not appropriate encyclopedic to be inserted into the target page, so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm wondering if you just stopped reading at that point. WP:MERGE goes on to say "with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page". So yes, it does say something about retaining information. As does the English definition (combine or cause to combine to form a single entity, notice the word combine...). Are you seriously claiming that a redirect is a merge? Hobit (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If some of the content in the article(s) to be merged already exists in the target article, then yes, some of the content has been put into the target article already. If that then leaves content that is deemed unencyclopedic and is left out, then that's what happens. (Mind you, the language "copy and pasted" is not really correct because more than likely a merge that does add more from a merged article will be edited appropriately to fit the flow of the target article during or after the merge - the attribution path should still be followed when doing so.) --MASEM (t) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

So assuming a redirect target has some information on the topic, any redirect is a merge? That is taking the English language (and Wikipedia terminology) and bending it so far on it's ear it's amazing. Our policies speak of redirection and merging as different things on a regular basis. I'm having a hard time coming up with an example where a redirect from an AfD wouldn't also be a merge in your use of the terminology. I'm starting to feel like you are just yanking my chain. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A redirect (as a close action from an AFD/discussion) w/o a merge means that an editor can go and blindly replace the page contents with the right #REDIRECT, not having to worry about attribution, existing content, or the like. It may be worthwhile to consider anchors in the target article as to help the redirect link land at the right spot, but that's it. A merge w/ redirect means that the editor performing the merge should review the contents of the to-be-merged article(s) and target and carefully determine what, if any, content should be brought over, and if any content is brought in, add in tracking for attribution, before making the target page a redirect.

Yes, that means that a merge that doesn't bring over any information before the redirect is going to look from a 60,000 ft level like a straight redirect, but that's where AGF comes into play, that the editor performing the merge made a judgement call that no new information from the page in question was needed in the target page. And that's why merge + redirects are tons better than deletion, because any editor can go back and pull out details they felt were important that the merging editor might have omitted and add them after the merge. (I would argue we would be in a similar place if FdF pulled one sentence and added it to the target articles before redirecting, with claims "he didn't merge enough!"). If FdF did this blindly, without any prior discussion at all, sure, I would question the motives behind it, but here, FdF is doing an action discussed before, with changes that were undone in the interim. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

My last reply on this: If nothing is merged, it ain't a merge. That's pretty obvious in my book. And as the action discussed before was a merge which never was implemented. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that you were part of the original discussion back in 2010, Hobit, if you had any objection about the amount of content moved, you had all the time to say it, or to move more content yourself. You never did, so I had no reason to assume you were not in agreement. All I did was to restore the 2010 status quo. You obviously have your own view on what a merge should be, but I see nothing here in opposition with WP:MERGE, so this discussion doesn't belong at ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

... none of which deals at all with the fact that Masem has asserted something so utterly ridiculous that it defies common sense. He's asserting that redirecting an article to a target that already contains something relevant and not adding or changing any of that content at the target article constitutes a merge, contra the definition that I quoted, and (as Hobit pointed out) he selectively re-quoted. Masem's behavior in this matter is clearly worse than yours, Folken, because you could simply say you were going too fast and assuming that the merges had previously been done, while Masem's argument is something that's meritless, has been pointed out as meritless, and yet he maintains that it is the definition is wrong, rather than he. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Common sense would suggest that merging involves taking some portion of one thing and including it in another. But reality is not that clear-cut, especially when more than two articles are involved in the merger. We could imagine a discussion closing with consensus to merge articles A,B,C,D into article X. Now suppose that the merging editor finds that article C just repeats one of the sections of article A, and that article D is nothing but tinfoil hat gibberish sourced to the article creator's personal blog. In that case, after the merge there will be nothing of articles C and D in the merge product but I would say the whole thing still does constitute a merge. Wouldn't you? This D&D situation is the extreme end of that scale, where a lot of articles have gone into the merge discussion and some content from some of the articles has found its way into the merge target, but nothing or very little from each individual article. I agree that this is more like mass redirection than a merge, but calling it a very selective merge is not totally off the wall. (And a very selective merge is exactly what this content needs, not wholesale Ctrl-C Ctrl-V). Reyk _YO! 05:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit) and the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger explicitly states that it's OK to simply redirect instead of merging if there is no mergeable content. Reyk _YO! 05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What it actually says is "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." (Emphasis mine) That is, if there's nothing to merge, than redirect it. Don't call it a merge, because it's not. It's not saying that there's such a thing as a merge without content added to the target, it's telling editors to use redirect instead, and be clear in their edit summaries that they are not merging but instead redirecting which is exactly what Folken de Fanel failed to do. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out over and over again, Folken was not claiming to be doing a merge. He was putting things back the way there were after someone else had undone the previously performed merges. That clearly is what "restore merge" means, and no amount of feigned incomprehension or creative misinterpretation will make it mean anything else- particularly when this has been clarified REPEATEDLY in this discussion, by Folken himself and several others. There is no dishonesty from Folken de Fanel here, as much as you obviously wish there was. If you think the original merges (or whatever you want to call them) were inadequate, take it up with User:Neelix who performed them. Otherwise, how can you call restoring an edit disruptive when you wouldn't call the original edit disruptive? And I still maintain that you could, at a stretch, call this a very selective merge anyway. Reyk _YO! 07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - that's exactly what MERGE says on the tin - combining two or more articles into one. It doesn't say a minimum amount of an article to be merge has to survive, only that we keep attribution history and redirect so that all the prior edits can be traced. There's a distict lack of good faith here in assuming what FdF is doing is purposely harmful. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have started a RfC draft discussion at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Better history links:

Folken de Fanel's 36 redirects
ChrisGualtieri's 35 rollbacks

Spot-checking these articles, I see a pattern where User:Neelix proposes and performs the merger in October 2010, and an IP editor restores in December 2011. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you identify where the merging was done? I didn't notice any merging at all. I might have missed it, but I don't think Neelix made a single edit involving content. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Neelix did merge the lead of Circle of Greater Powers to the lead of the list (overall diff, history). The last paragraph of WP:Merging#Reasons for merger allows for redirecting without copying, but asks that it be clearly identified in the edit summary. I prefer precise edit summaries, as they make WP:Copying within Wikipedia checking easier. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel has a long history of problematic behavior, which was cataloged at a recent RFC/U. He has been blocked on multiple language Wikipedias for edit warring, including this one. He is indefinitely banned on fr.wiki, his home language wiki, and remains indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on it.wiki. He's had plenty of chances to shape up his contributions, but seems more intent on harassing those of us who point out his poor, uncollaborative behavior. If indeed he's making widespread use of misleading edit summaries, then it's probably time to increment the number of Wikipedias in which he's no longer welcome. No doubt some of the same people who opined in the that RFC/U that he was being persecuted for his views will rush to his defense here, but it really falls to the greater community--how much longer will this conduct be allowed to continue? Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Chris has been doing a great job with the merges so far, and needs to be allowed to continue. If it helps him to have the articles live as he merges them, then I don't see a problem holding them restored for a brief time. He already merged back a few last night before logging off[72][73][74], and given the sheer amount of cleanup and merging work he has put in over the last week, I don't see why we can't extend a little good faith that he is going to have that taken care of quickly. If that really is an insurmountable problem for everyone else, then since he is doing merges by going through the categories, then at least do him the favor of keeping the categories when you redirect the pages. BOZ (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problem with Chris merging D&D articles in his own way, but he absolutely needs to master the simple courtesy of communicating with other users rather than making misguided accusations of bad faith or needlessly dragging them at ANI whenever something doesn't go exactly the way he wants.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. I noticed a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mask (Forgotten Realms) explaining that a series of merges to List of Forgotten Realms deities, performed per a consensus discussion in 2010, had been restored by a disruptive IP around 2011. Some of these articles ended up at AfD recently, and I agreed with the editor's recommendation of a procedural close to redirect/merge. I went to check the discussion and all the articles that were part of the merge proposal. Indeed, most, if not all of them had been illegitimately restored by an IP, and since there were was already users asking for these articles to be redirected right away so as not to clutter AfD, I went ahead and restored the redirect, ie the merge procedure from 2010. I saw that the 2010 consensus was apparently satisfied with the short content already present beforehand in the target article, so I didn't do more than restoring the redirects that should have stayed as such. What little content was added to the articles between 2011 and now didn't amount to much, and WP:MERGE doesn't prevent only a small part of the article to be moved, so yeah, that's it. I simply returned things to the 2010 status-quo, and the accusation of "false edit summary" is at best laziness, or at worse outright and misguided assumption of bad faith from ChrisGualtieri.
This is really a non-issue and a useless cluttering of ANI. ChrisGualtieri can easily access article histories and move whatever content to the target he deems necessary (something he doesn't seem to get), if he considered there were better merge targets or ways to merge, then he could just have informed me, changed the redirect target without mass-reverting me, and just proceeded (as long as he has consensus on his side). ChrisGualtieri seems to have major communication issues per his recent ANI reports, and on top of that this comes only a day after he again misguidedly assumed bad faith against me about another case of redirect, so I would not appreciate if this behavior became a trend. I have also noted that ChrisGualtieri has just created a new article, List of human deities (Dungeons & Dragons), to apparently merge all the articles in question there. I don't necessarily agree with this choice, of which ChrisGualtieri failed to notify me, and I hope this ANI report was not a way to preemptively stifle opposition.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with your post.since you were notified of it going to this noticeboard. You have harassed me and caused a great amount of stress and all because you are incapable of understanding when people are even on your side. In the span of two weeks, I've done more to fix the Dungeons and Dragons content than you have in your entire editing history! Deletion is a last resort and of the 100+ pages I've merged, you have the audacity to flagrantly twist my words and actions into some sniveling little behavior dispute? Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia; it is not therapy and you should not be here to fight anyone. Folken de Fanel, you are not worth MY time, and you are not worth this communities time when you refuse to understand even the most basic of reasons why I temporarily restored them: To prevent over 400 broken links that go into a redirect loop. If you had bothered to check and carry out a merger instead of creating said redirect loops, I wouldn't have rolled them back and I wouldn't have brought this here. You equate "causing stress" to a personal attack.[75] You have caused a lot of unnecessary stress with your battleground behavior and wasted hours of time responding to your sheepish excuses and disruptive actions. Now I am going to conduct the rest of the mergers now that I have a few spare hours and maybe do some of the 500 other D&D pages that need merging or fixing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Outside of your own, obvious hostile behavior against me, I can't see anything here that belongs in ANI. I have provided all the necessary explanation in my previous comment, that you keep ignoring it and even go further in your groundless accusations speaks volumes about you. That's not the first time you've written frivolous ANI reports, so I wouldn't like you to think ANI is your go-to whenever you don't want to bother communicating. I'm not (yet) seeking sanctions against you because you're otherwise a valuable user, but I'm asking the closer of this thread to firmly remind you that ANI is not your personal alternative to civil discussion. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If one merges a number of articles which are only besourced to primary sources into a list (which is therefore similarly only sourced to primary sources), the list is just as subject to deletion as the original articles ("Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies"). Not that it would get deleted round here, as there are too many people prepared to ignore Wikipedia policy in AfDs, but I hope Chris is hoping to add some real-world notability to that article. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The plain descrption of plot and characters in fiction can and should be preferentially taken from the work itself, it is one of the places where primary sources are appropriate. since the sections of an article or the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements, there is no need for secondary sourcing of undisputed factual content, and the attempt to remove such is one of the reasons why some of us are a little apprehensive about indiscriminate merging. This attitude that we should remove ll mention whatsoever of the actual events and individuals in a fiction is thoroughly unencyclopedic. BK, you closed a very closely related discussion at AN/I --your comment above suggests to me that you are too involved in these questions to have done so. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet, at the same time, WP:NOT#PLOT says we don't burden topics with too much detail taken from primary sources even if it is verifiable. If no secondary source has bothered to do a more detailed discussion or review of the fiction, we should not be going into that great detail ourselves. The articles FdF is merging rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing, and as such, a lot of that content has to be trimmed out in the merge to make the target article appropriate for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I closed the ANI as it was getting off the point (towards RFC/U territory) and there was no admin action required. As for the above, I don't see how merely stating Wikipedia policy is at all contentious. As Masem says, if "the articles ... rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing" then we shouldn't be creating a bigger article with the same problem. Since the individual items are non-notable, the one reason for having such a list (navigation) does not apply. To say "the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements" is flat out wrong - there has no be notability for the main subject of the list, and that means secondary sources. Otherwise we could create lists of, well, pretty much anything non-notable using the same criteria. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

DnD's use of deities (and how it changes between settings and over time) is certainly a subject that has received outside coverage. Now, I don't think the current organization in any way promotes the effective presentation of that coverage, and the merges (by race of fictional adherent? seriously?) don't seem at the moment to be creating any better of a situation. But the topic does pass N, because you could go write Gods in Dungeons & Dragons and that would be a real article on a notable topic. --erachima talk 10:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

At which point, due to its length, List of deities in Dungeons & Dragons is a valid WP:SPINOUT (if not worthy of being that topic's main article in its own right). I don't remember the precise bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP but it's always been my understanding (after reading it long ago) that if a list is on a notable topic, the individual items in said list do not necessarily need to pass N themselves (and this is why, my not-yet-caffinated brain continues remembering, merging to a list is often a good idea at AfD). That said, we shouldn't necessarily merge wholesale from fails-N articles to a list, instead using "X is Y, and is recognised in-universe for Z" in a single paragraph at most in the list with the article redirected there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment- I do not see how FdF's edit summaries are deceitful. It's very clear that he is not claiming to actually be merging anything. Rather, he explicitly states that he is returning these pages to their post-merge state and links to the discussion where the merges were proposed. That much is obvious from reading the edit summaries. And if that wasn't clear enough, he's said much the same thing here at this ill-thought-out ANI thread. Reyk _YO! 04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Realistically, since we're not even prepared to put any constraints on Claritas' freedom to roam the fiction topic area removing content at will, there's no point even discussing Folken de Fanel. Unlike Claritas, FdF doesn't have a history of bad faith.
I do seriously question the community's judgment on this. I think it's a horrible mistake to let these users blunder about the fiction topic area like loose cannons, and I feel we could save ourselves a lot of future drama and heartache with a few judicious topic bans. But the community won't stomach it, so move on.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Primarily because if we topic banned everyone who did anything controversial, nothing would ever get done. --erachima talk 15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I still can't see anything "controversial" or any "blunder" that I would have done in this case. In 2010, a consensus discussion established that a series of articles were to be merged, and several users, including some who have contributed here, approved the move, as well as the amount of content being merged (perfectly in compliance with WP:Merging#Reasons for merger). In 2011, a disruptive IP reverted the redirects against consensus and without discussion. In 2013, some of these restored articles ended up at AfD, where a member of the D&D project noticed the IP's disruptions and remarked these articles were better restored back to redirects rather than cluttering AfD. Following the said AfD I found all the other articles in question and in perfect accordance with my edit summaries, merely restored them back to their 2010 status, which should never have been changed. If there was anything controversial or any blunder, it lies with the original disruptive IP and the misguided user who overreacted by opening this thread in blatant assumption of bad faith instead of just trying to properly understand the situation, or even to initiate simple communication. End of story.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A three-year-old consensus of three users is your justification for this, right?—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked, WP:CONSENSUS is one of our major policies. I hope, also per your ambiguous edit summary, that you're not suggesting it could be trumped by WP:INCLUSIONISM ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are like scripture; somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules you can find support for any position no matter how extreme. I'm sure you'll be able to trot out other policy-based excuses as well. What I'm suggesting is that you're justifying your actions on the basis of a three-year-old consensus of three users.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And comments at AfD. And support in this very thread. Your point being...?Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My point being that there's considerable good faith doubt about your edits in this topic area and you should not continue with them until the consensus is clearer.—S Marshall T/C 19:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And there has been objection to this consensus...where? (Somebody coming along and deciding "oooh boy I can make this article on my favourite fictional deity/Transformer/Pokemon!" doesn't count.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't see those doubts in this discussion. Or at least they failed to garner consensus, which unfortunately forces me to consider them unreasonable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)#

Okay, well those of us who aren't The Bushranger or Folken de Fanel can see the doubts in this very thread. You're not "unfortunately forced to consider them unreasonable", FdF. You apparently choose to consider them unreasonable because it suits your purposes to do so. As I've said before, there's no chance of this leading to a topic ban of any kind because you've shown no bad faith on en.wiki recently, but there's a wide gulf between the absence of a topic ban and the ringing endorsement of your actions that you're pretending is happening here.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent}<self removed>

Folken de Fanel has not been lying, either here or in his edit summaries, as has been conclusively proven in this discussion. The only poor behaviour I have seen is your misuse of rollback. Reyk _YO! 00:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(Comment self removed - comment was twisted to a personal attack and I rather remove it as withdrawn in apologies to Folken ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC) )

Sigh. Folken restored a bunch of redirects that had been left behind after another editor's merge of those articles, stating so explicitly in his edit summaries, which also link back to the merge discussion. Your position is that not enough of the articles made it into the merge target for it to really be called a merge and therefore Folken's edit summaries are deliberately dishonest. What a load of bullshit. Reyk _YO! 03:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I split my reply into numbered items:

FdF's edit summaries and merging versus redirecting have been thoroughly discussed above. I think that your replies would be better directed to specific comments there.
I don't understand your reference to WP:Articles for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Mystra (goddess) was closed as no consensus in 2007. Do you mean that AfD is required to establish a binding decision and that Talk:List of Forgotten Realms deities/Archive 1#Merge with individual deity and deity group articles is not a valid merger discussion?
I agree with FdF calling the IP editors' restorations "disruptive". The users in question are 129.33.19.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and editor(s) on a dynamic IP (208.54.38.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 208.54.40.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 208.54.40.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 208.54.40.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), from Tyr, Talos, and Mystra). No substantial improvements were made during December 2011, and the only added sources through today are source books, an adventure module, and a tie-in novel. A lack of acceptable reliable sources was the original rationale for merging. The date parameters were removed from the cleanup tags, but there may be a reasonable explanation.
- Tyr (Forgotten Realms): October 2010–December 2011 diff, history; 2010–today diff
- Talos (Forgotten Realms): October 2010–December 2011 diff, history; 2010–today diff
- Mystra (Forgotten Realms): October 2010–December 2011 diff, history; 2010–today diff

Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Noticeboard behavior by User:ChrisGualtieri

Dispute resolved. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Well, if I'm being called a "dick", a "troll", a "liar" who "spews bad faith and threats to any opposer" and other nice words, all that while consensus in this thread is clearly supportive of my actions, I'm changing my mind and formally asking for sanctions against ChrisGualtieri following his blatant personal attacks (at AN of all places...). It's time for this farce to end.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm closing this as I've said it was off-topic before. This is not AN and the page issues have been rectified. No need for drama between inclusionists and deletionists. Sorry, Folken if this upset you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

...and so User:ChrisGualtieri's quest to become the first user in Wikipedia history banned for sheer hypocrisy continued. Today's evidence that Chris believes different rules apply to himself and everyone else: [76] vs. [77].
Anyway, I would like to second Folken's call for sanctions, and specifically propose the following:
Given his serial history of forum shopping and spurious noticeboard complaints, User:ChrisGualtieri shall not be allowed to directly create threads on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or similar noticeboards for a period of 6 months. Instead, Chris is required to take his complaints to another user of his choice, preferably an administrator, who will post them on Chris's behalf if they think there are legitimate grounds for community attention. --erachima talk 08:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We have already resolved our differences following my apology at his talk page. Simply put, this was not about getting Folken in trouble, but merely notifying that I had done a bold and questionable rollback under unusual circumstances for a very specific reason. The inclusionism and deletionism sidetrack is bad and off track. I'm reclosing this as the matter is already settled between both of us and this was never a "sanction" issue on Folken and I have removed the other offending post after its re-insertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, and now we can add reverting noticeboard postings about yourself to the list.[78] This is not about your "differences" with Folken anymore, Chris, this is about your serial disruption, forum shopping, and attempted intimidation of other editors via spurious Noticeboard postings, as seen here, here, here, here, and here, as well as several other DRN postings which are also likely WP:FORUMSHOP violations but I'm not counting because they were actually used rather than summarily abandoned.
Oh, and for another fun one for the hypocrisy log, you apparently consider removing posts from your talk page disruptive when User:Ryulong does it, but a Right when you do it. --erachima talk 15:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But if the two users in question have indeed resolved their differences for now, then what further purpose is there to continue discussions here. If more people worked things out between them, we'd need the Drama Boards here a lot less. Let it go. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, that will not do. Treat this as a new thread if you'd prefer, the discussion's only happening in this particular thread because the hypocrisy involved in the close was enough to spur me to actually document the problem. Chris's abuse of the noticeboards and community discussion pages is longstanding and noted by more than just me. I'm requesting a minimal sanction here in hopes that it can head off the need for broader sanctions later by forcibly breaking Chris's pattern of responding to any discussion that does not immediately yield the result he wants by starting a new discussion elsewhere. --erachima talk 16:03, 21 October 2013 (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.

Wiki-PR claim

I see from their site that they claim a 'staff of 45 Wikipedia editors and admins'. Has there been any sign that they have a WP admin on their books? If true, would the standing of such an admin be affected here? I'm not asking for outing, or unfounded allegations. Just a sort of yes or no, and what if. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

– For reference, this is the site discussed: https://www.wiki-pr.com/

--Auric talk 12:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Of course their standing would be affected by this. Assuming they are being paid for being associated with a company, they have the possibility of doing serious damage. Among other things, they could hypothetically delete revisions unfavorable to them, protect articles in a dispute over content to something favorable, block accounts that are causing problems for them and be the judge of (deletion) discussions where they could pose as a neutral party when they are not. Being an administrator and being associated with Wiki-PR is a no-no. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)