Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 10 November 2013 (→‎Nominations for the 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

      You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

      Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

      Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

      On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

      There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

      When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

      Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

      Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

      Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

      Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      new closer needed
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
      If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
      Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
      However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
      In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
      I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
      I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
      The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Feb Mar Apr May Total
      CfD 0 0 9 15 24
      TfD 0 0 0 2 2
      MfD 0 0 0 2 2
      FfD 0 0 0 3 3
      RfD 0 0 4 24 28
      AfD 0 0 0 32 32

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

      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.[1] 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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) -- Given that the current offer doesn't include disclosing past accounts I'm opposed to unbanning under his proposed conditions. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
      • 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. Resolute 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      Conditional Oppose: While it maybe possible/wise to overlook, all that is truly past (accounts and edits and non-disclosure); the statements below seem to suggest that the corporation will not disclose presently ongoing COI arrangements (the "maintain" article agreements issues), only future arrangements. If they will not upfront disclose relative to any/all COI editing going forward, then oppose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

        @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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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 - TP 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Support. The ban was ridiculous and out of process. Eric Corbett 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
                    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • Oppose: There were many diffs listed in the discussion showing infringements of WP:Sock puppetry here: [2] and also here [3] and here [4]. After concerns were first raised that there were infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user denied and said these accusations were done "falsely" [5]. 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 [6]. 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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).[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      Really, could you show me a few of them? I never saw any such diffs. Jehochman Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we had at least four accounts acting his meatpuppets and edited his biography[7], [8], [9], [10]. 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • He tells: we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors [11]. 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      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. [12]) -- that's why the Pedia sometimes blocks/bans. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      User:Camper-mann adds promotional material and removes negative information from the Alex Konanykhin article [13]. Camper-mann continues to infringe rules against promotional editing (all related to Alexander Konanykhin), and is subsequently blocked for inserting advertising into Wikipedia [14]. 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 [15], 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      When editors first complained to User:AKonanykhin about not following disclosure requirements, the user's response was to say that it "cannot" be done, and that such disclosures would be unethical, and would put clients at a competitive disadvantage (because others would not disclose despite the requirements) [16] [17]. And this is in a context of a "crusade" or "jihad" supposedly being waged by Jimbo Wales and other editors against (partially) the user and WikiExperts, in which is a prerogative to avoid scrutiny [18]. Then the user is banned. And then also the user sees that other users will largely only agree to lifting the ban if these disclosure requirements are agreed to. So, when, in the mind of User:AKonanykhin, did agreeing to these requirements stop being an unethical concession which simply cannot be done in this holy war? Your theory is that the hyperbolic claims of it being unethical were the sincere beliefs of User:AKonanykhin, but then he coincidentally changed these sincere beliefs right when doing so would allow an unban. My theory is that he was or is being insincere at some point, either then or now. That's not me failing to give the full picture, that's me having a different interpretation of motivation than you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No, failing to give the full picture is to leave out the fact that the business policies have been modified when you say that "First he claims that he can't disclose for business reasons and then a few days later he claims he can disclose". If the business policies have been modified then this explains why he can now disclose. The same is true at Wikipedia. If there's a rule against vandalism then we can say that we can't vandalize. If this rule is repealed then we can now say that we can vandalize. That's not an example of us lying. That's an example of the policies that bind us changing. It would be presenting an incomplete picture to say "Look at these liars! One day they say they can't vandalize, then the next day they say they can! Something is fishy!" without mentioning the policy change. The same is apparently true in this case with AKonanykhin. -Thibbs (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. GiantSnowman 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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. GiantSnowman 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Giantsnowman - was this meant for the section above?--v/r - TP 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, apologies, this thread is too bloody long! GiantSnowman 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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. GiantSnowman 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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 [19], [20], [21], [22], exactly as they suppose to be as PR people. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]


      Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - 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. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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. ThemFromSpace 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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 - TP 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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 - TP 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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 [23], 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 [24], 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)[reply]
      • 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 - TP 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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 - TP 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 ([25]). 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)[reply]
      You yourself are tearing down pillars, namely 3 and 5. KonveyorBelt 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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 - TP 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • My very best wishes (talk · contribs), edits in violation of WP:SOAP are violations of SOAP regardless of whether they are motivated by payment, and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no need for a separate sanction targeting paid editing. Since there is no reason to disclose any other bias (like one's race when editing an article about race, or one's religion when editing a religious article, or one's political leanings when editing a political article), there is no reason to disclose the specific bias created by paid editing. Attempting to do so resolves nothing and pushes the behavior even more underground. Let's show a little more faith in our content-guarding policies and guidelines like NPOV, Notability, WP:IRS, and, yes, WP:SOAP. --B2C 05:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not about bias. An editor who belongs to an outside organization makes promotional edits (including removal of important reliably sourced information - yes, I saw this a number of times, and this is the reason I do not edit in certain subject areas) not because he has a bias, but because he was told to do them by his superiors. He acts as a proxy. He acts essentially as a meatpuppet. Therefore, the disclosure is necessary.My very best wishes (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I do not mind when people work for educational or scientific organizations (although a disclosure would be appropriate/necessary even in such cases), but when it comes to political PR, such as removal of well-sourced information about crime, no. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I question the prohibitions on meat puppetry as well. But that's a bias too... it's a bias favoring the views of the meat. I don't care why people edit as they do - I care whether the result of their edits -- the affected content -- is in compliance with our content-specific policies and guidelines. That's it. --B2C 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Firm Oppose. Per Smallbones and Nyttend. While some people here claim that the banning process was "flawed," the fact that it's an editor with his own article we're talking about here, who has made repeated intentions of violating WP policy, and suddenly seeking an unban roughly two weeks after Kudpung closing it? Jeez, as per Nyttend, try going off the grid for six months!
      I agree with Smallbones' points on the subject being alerted of possible edits to a client article and their people will fix it. That's already owning it in my book and they dare other people to edit client articles. AKonanykin's making a really stupid facade of declaring that his company will suddenly follow all WP guidelines despite all his rhetoric about violating them, hypocrite much? An unban will only play into his hands.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose unban per two points:
      1. I call shenanigans, basically. I believe AKonanykhin is a good businessperson and will do what good businesspeople do, which is serve the needs of their paying clients. What they have stated they do for their clients seems patently incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. I just don't believe their culture, aims and methods can turn on a word like that. I read the latest on AKonanykhin's User Talk and there's a lot of "Yes, but..." there setting up loopholes. Yes, WP:AGF but also AGF is not a suicide pact.
      2. Where are the diffs? - Several commentors here supporting the unban have asked for diffs showing the ban is justified. However, this is not another !vote on banning. This is an UNBAN vote. We normally only grant an appeal to lift a ban after it has been demonstrated that the editor can contribute productively and in line with Wikipedia's rules. Where are the diffs demonstrating this? If AKonanykhin provides a complete list of their paying clients and accounts the company uses, and demonstrates that well-sourced content that meets Wikipedia's content policies but reflects badly on their paying clients won't be challenged or removed, I might reconsider.
      Zad68 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose unban As someone else wrote, "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." Paid editing is advertising, and Wikipedia does not allow ads. John Nagle (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, hiring of an experienced participant by a business can be a bribery - if the payment alters to the worse editing behavior of the recipient.My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Unban with proviso that all Paid COI edits must be identified on talk pages of affected articles, under penalty of return to banned status. The marketing of this company implies NPOV is the least of their worries. We need to make sure that it is on their radar, and the only way to do that is if we know where to look. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no consensus to unban this account. We can talk about why that is for months. Doc talk 11:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unban: As much as I am opposed to paid editing, as it truly does undermine the spirit of Wikipedia, I am unconvinced by arguments that this ban should stay in place. If the ban was to be kept in place until a promise to declare conflict-of-interest was made, then there really is no reason to keep the ban in place. A lot of the arguments to keep the ban in place revolve around the implicit mistrust we have in paid editors, and that in many cases may be well founded. However we set a ban in place and gave specific guidance as to how it could be removed, and if we do not follow through on our word here, then we are just as untrustworthy. Do we really set expectations for people without meaning them? Do we really set bans or blocks in place with instructions as to how it can be removed, then reneg on those terms when someone complies?
      It appears that a major concern is that we have no idea whether or not the company will comply with the terms of the unban. I’m a little sceptical of that line of argumentation. If they are unbanned and hey, look, there doesn’t seem to be any Wikiex account anywhere doing anything whatsoever, I think we’ll have our answer—they’re not following the rules. And if contributions do pop up, we’ll know immediately if we need to revert them or not. So I think we can see pretty easily whether or not to trust the company’s word if there is future disclosure, or if there is not. Considering all we have to go off right now is a couple of stale diffs from before the editors went into business that would be very beneficial in terms of seeing what potential problem lies here. On top of that, we can see what their editing patterns are and if we want, continue searching for problem patterns that might have popped up elsewhere, and address such patterns as they arise. So if they can’t provide past accounts, I don’t see the issue personally, as if they were problem accounts we’ll find them. Wikipedia isn’t fragile or incompetent, we can easily see if the unban should stay or a ban reimposed by a small sample size of disclosed edits. So again, no reason to reneg on our word. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Real problem here is not paid editing, but use of multiple accounts by the same organization when every individual account acts as company's proxy. Yes, I agree, such bans can be appealed, but only under one standard condition: complete disclosure of all their current accounts to asses potential damage (or possibly benefits) of their activities. Actually, we have this below with regard to another company: This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that XYZ as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A standard could be set, but I don’t see where it has. I’ve reread the ban again and it does not mention retroactive disclosure, so are we not moving the goal posts here? In retrospect, if the ban had included retroactive disclosure, the vote could have turned out differently. In addition, if the ban had not included a clear pathway to reinstatement, again the vote could have turned out quite differently. There is no way of knowing if the ban would have been agreed to with the new standard of retroactive disclosure. It’s not that retroactive disclosure is a bad idea, it’s that no one agreed that it would be necessary. I dislike these types of people as much as anybody, and would prefer no paid editing whatsoever on Wikipedia. But the language used was pretty specific, and ignoring that language in favour of new conditions strikes me as strange.
      The other thing that bothers me is the assumption of bad faith in past edits, which was also not a part of the ban. You mention WikiPR, where there is evidence of bad faith edits, but this case provides none. For all our searching (I’ve done some myself too) I can’t find examples of bad faith editing—and definitely nothing that would make me feel comfortable with establishing new conditions for unbanning. Maybe that’s all beside the point though, because from what I read the ban doesn’t state anywhere that there was an assumption of bad faith edits. It only states that it was unethical (and, quite frankly, abhorrent) to lambaste Wikipedia in the way that it was happening and at the same time not disclose accounts that could prove good faith editing. The logic behind this wasn’t that the company must be editing badly, but that we didn’t trust it to edit without supervision. Anyhow, I’m uncomfortable with the apparent shape-shifting of the argument not to unban and the setting of new conditions that did not appear in the ban, as when I apply the arguments here to the ban language, I feel it is starting to slip away from the original decision (which I agreed with, by the way). I think that is dangerous for the long-term development of a paid editing policy that keeps Wikipedia safer, as it doesn’t show continuity in our decisions. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:AGF policy is only about individuals, not organizations. Importantly, even though we have AGF, we also can and should trace contributions by individual editors to identify those who actually damage the project - this happens all the time. When it comes to corporations, there is an additional dimension: activities of people who work on behalf of the same organization are normally coordinated from the same center. Is it an illegal coordination? We do not really know without having their disclosure. We can't AGF that activities of between different people from the same corporation are uncoordinated because they usually are, almost by definition. Yes, I believe they must make retroactive disclosure as a precondition of their unban, so we can check they did not do damage like Wiki-PR. Did this particular user and his employees were actually engaged in doubtful coordinated activities? Yes, at least four their accounts (one of them blocked) edited biography of Mr. Konanykhin. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as a point of interest, nowhere in WP:AGF does it state what you are implying it does. Groups of people are not treated differently from people by the policy, which is besides the point, as I was only pointing out that there was no breach of WP:AGF retroactively in the ban language and that therefore I find that imposing it now is contrary to our mission—which is to root out any potential problem we might have. I am clearly not saying that no tracing should occur, I in fact stated that we can trace patterns much more easily if damage exists by allowing ourselves a recent sample of their edits. As a complete aside, I’m not sure that making charges of illegal activity is in line with WP:LEGAL, as you are implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed. But I could be wrong on that.
      Really, I agree with you that perhaps in the future retroactive disclosure requests could be made a part of any cban. But it wasn’t in this case, and again, I think that trying to impose it regardless doesn’t respect the original community consensus. Is there evidence enough to ignore the consensus and impose new sanctions? The evidence you present for unconstructive editing is pretty old. One is an attempt to post material that was shut down pretty easily by us four years ago, and which occurred before the company we are talking about came to being. The second is a case where conflict of interest was actually disclosed, so the policy we’re trying to imposed (and rightfully so) wasn’t circumvented. That second edit was just to add a photo, I would add, and one we still have on the Commons and in use. I’d want to see far more in terms of recent, damaging diffs to determine the impact of this situation on the site, and in fact, believe that we will never be able to determine such potential damage if we do not respect the language of the original consensus and disallow ourselves the ability to see what new edits we receive. That’s fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our backs. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Where did you find that I am "implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed"? I never said anything even close. I only said somewhere that I saw how certain editors remove well-sourced negative information (including information about crime) from articles about certain rich/influential living people and organizations, and I am sure this is COI problem. Unfortunately, based on my experience here, this is all unprovable (no one declares their COI in political subjects of course), can't be fixed, and only will get me banned. So I would rather avoid editing these subjects, and that is exactly what I actually did.My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - 2nd arbitrary break

      • The original ban stated [26]:
      "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."
      People might argue in how to interpret the first "will", but to me it's stating the company's editors must disclose that they have been paid to edit articles prior to the ban and that any new employees must do so if/when the ban is lifted. It does not require that they name their clients, although that can be reasonably inferred from the articles they have edited since 2010. In fact, although they later attempted to make that information harder to find, several of them had been openly declared, along with their articles. See for example, User:Eclipsed here, here (uncollapse the thread). The user pages of two of the four editors whom Eclipsed "adopted" (and at one point referred to as his "team"): [27], [28]. All four editors can be found here. See also here (uncollapse the "Declarations"). Plus this user after this. I will notify all the editors I've mentioned here, although apart from Eclipsed, they now appear to be inactive. There is another editor who is almost certainly from WikiExperts who has extensively edited WikiExperts.us as well as all the other articles on Konanykhin's various companies, his wife, her associates, etc. I won't name them here as they have made no attempt to declare their COI. Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three points. (a) Yes, this is written in text of ban: all accounts (including current ones) should be disclosed. (b) Konanykhin said that they have a non-disclosure agreement not only with their clients, but also with "their" wikipedia editors [29] and that they currently have a number of editors here, rather than these old accounts (in his another statement too where he tells that their people stopped editing during the ban) (c) Making such non-disclosure agreement means creating a Cabal; and we know several cases when members such "teams" (even not bound by any agreements) were sanctioned by Arbcom in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The original drafter of the ban language himself has stated he supports an unban in the above discussion. I believe that they would have the closest understanding of what the language was supposed to mean. A number of other users who supported the ban have changed their minds, so I am reasonably assured that these individuals have the right interpretation of the language. In addition, there was very little discussion of disclosing retroactively in the commentary that led to the ban, so I'm relatively convinced that your misinterpreting it. No retroactive disclosure was agreed upon by the community. That said, we can go round and round like this for weeks. On your other point Voceditenore, I would indeed like to hear from User:Eclipsed to see how his or her Wikipedia activities are related to this discussion and what they have to say about the things being said about him/her. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It does not matter what drafter or anyone else tells. It only matters what was actually written in the ban, because that is what people voted for. My very best wishes (talk)
      We're saying the same thing here, just from two different sides. I believe it is a stretch here to say the ban intended for retroactive disclosure, and that moving the goal posts doesn't help us deal with the problem at hand. I'm also saying, I guess, overall, that smacking away the hand that is being extended by the company in question and gaining the "upperhand" so to speak by actually seeing if what we fear exists (potentially attrocious editing) is not in our best interests either. I'd rather keep Keyser Söze in my grips while I can (no offense to the company/person described meant, I'm purely using an analogy). Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Two points. 1. Retroactive disclosure to some extent may well be the incidental result of present and future disclosure, but present and future disclosure should occur, nonetheless. 2) Are there current claims that present/future disclosure cannot be made? If so, those should be rejected, as incompatible with the ban condition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, nothing should stand in the way of present and future disclosure. Any claim that full disclosure post-unban is not possible due to potential retroactive disclosure would be a cause to reinstate said ban, if made. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      @ Jeremy112233... You want to know what role of User:Eclipsed is in all this? Read this posting he made to AN in November 2010, when this company was first brought to the noticeboard:

      "Greetings! My name is David, and on Wikipedia my username is Eclipsed. I recently signed up as COO of the company named in this thread. My boss is Alex Konanykhin. I receive financial compensation for the work I do for this company. I would like to say more, but I feel to do so may be a violation the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING".

      Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is perfect example what happens when political PR companies are working in Wikipedia. Eclipsed was a well-intended participant who contributed just fine since 2005. He was recruited in 2010 (based on his statement), which led to COI problems and finally his retirement from the project. This incident alone could be a reason for banning the company. What they do is bribery. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In that same post that I linked Eclipsed claimed that he was already working as a free-lance paid editor here, but finding it hard to make a go of it until he met Konanykhin. If he is to be believed, he wasn't exactly corrupted by his current boss, although if you read the whole discussion (uncollapse the thread), several editors disputed the accuracy of his narrative. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you! Strange that there was a disclosure of COI on User:Eclipsed's edits instead of being done in secret. It's not all that relevant to the ban/unban discussion though I guess, as it is an example of disclosure that has already taken place and not of undisclosed contributions, in line with what we are demanding. We can use it in other ways though perhaps. Maybe as an example of how the company might have in the past been able to edit in the way we need them to, for those on the fence, or at least that sample size of edits I was talking about, in terms of the kinds of potential edits we are trying to ferret out. Good information. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a disorganized discussion because people commented and voted with regard to three different issues: (a) paid editing (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but better be declared), (b) WP:COI (editing in the area of your expertise, paid or not, is not necessarily COI), and (c) working on behalf of an external political PR/propaganda organization by multiple editors coordinated from the same center (potential improper coordination and WP:SOAP problems). I think (c) is the most serious issue that requires complete disclosure of all recent and current accounts used by all external organizations currently working in Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I fully respect your opinion, though I've heard almost nobody in the above thread describe anything like your option "c", and find it mildly bombastic--equating public relations people to propagandists and whatnot, or assuming that there are multiple tag teams of editors out there (no one has provided evidence of that). Your use of WP:SOAP is apt though; I would add that if any significant amount of unambiguously promotional material is found and deleted in association from the organization we're discussing, that there could be grounds for restrictions outside the language of the ban in any unban. I just don't see any such clear examples of such unambiguous promotional activity right now, which makes me concerned that we're imprinting our own worst fears on a phantom that may or may not have any of the organs we might be attributing to it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps this whole discussion is purely academic. Even Jehochman does not believe these guys are going to respect Wikipedia rules. He tells in his opening statement: "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"'...My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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 - TP 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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 - TP 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • I'm fine with this. Might be a good way to go with all paid editing. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Support Other paid editors, such as WWB, have used this method successfully. Steven Walling • talk 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Support - every paid editor should indicate their allegiance otherwise it constitutes violation of WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

      " 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Proposal number 99999: Declare that you do paid editing

      This seems by far the most sensible and lightest solution. If you engage in paid editing, place a notice on your user page or talk page that says you do. This bit could be compulsory, if that's what consensus says. If all your edits, or the majority are paid for, then you should say, but this bit isn't required. No need to disclose exact clients, or their exact requests. No messy signatures, no outright bans, just a simple notice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      1. Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Support as long as this is not interpreted to mean that this is the only thing that needs to be done. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Depending on exactly what you mean by that, then no, it doesn't suggest that this will resolve the entire problem. I'm not that naive. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      3. Support This is one of the simplest things to be done and one of the best. Declaring any COI before you start editing will hopefully defuse tensions. KonveyorBelt 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      4. Support. This makes sense; we need to wake up to the reality that paid editing is going to go on (just as unpaid biased editing is going to go on), and our best defense against error is to have it out in the open. On a slightly more maudlin note, I feel bad for Luke, since this is Proposal number 99999, and Proposal number 100000 wins a free Hawaiian vacation. Well, I'm off to make a proposal... bd2412 T 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      5. Support I feel the issue isn't being paid for editing, per se, but whether or not a person clearly profits from the edit: consider two cases. If someone fixes a typo or adds a minor detail to a biography (date of marriage or graduation from college), no one's response would change if the edit was made by the subject, his arch enemy, or an objective person who jsut happens to know the fact. On the other hand, if someone questionale material to a controversial subject, thus tilting the POV of the article in one direction, the community response will be in proportion to just how vested that person is in the subject -- viz., a newbie is far more likely to simply be educated on Wikipedia ways than someone being serious money by an advocacy group or business. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      6. Support I think this has already been agreed upon by the prior consensus, and by this one. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      7. Oppose. Clients' identities must be disclosed if disclosure is to have any value. Otherwise, what does this accomplish? The whole point of COI declarations is to put other editors on notice so they can apply additional scrutiny to your edits are they deem appropriate. A bare declaration that you've done some paid editing, for who knows whom and for who knows what, provides very little guidance, if any. In addition many editors (especially those with less experience than the ones patrolling this noticeboard) don't often look at other editors' user pages, so a COI disclosure on an article's talk page (such as a Template:connected contributor tag) would be much more effective. Moreover I see nothing wrong with requiring paid editors to disclose their client lists. This is not WP:OUTING. If they signed NDAs, well, that's their problem. And expecting them to follow a "paid editor honor code" is sheer folly, given the empirical evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I have a feeling, based on people's reactions, that the proposal isn't being read very carefully. The proposal isn't for full disclosure, but rather for partial disclosure. I'd like to see other editors weigh in not only on whether disclosure of paid editing is warranted but also whether disclosure of clients is warranted as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, clients identities don't have to be disclosed. That's never been a thing, it's just many people wish it was (including you, it seems); it also borders on WP:OUTING to force it to happen, as you are expecting confidential information to be put into the open. If you see a spammy article from someone with an "I engage in paid editing" notice, then it's almost certain that they were paid for it, and that they need to be watched carefully. Since paid editing is not a policy violation, there is at present nothing more that can be done. At the end of a day, someone can be neutral or biased regardless of payment. Good, neutral pay editors should not be discouraged; those who act in a biased or policy-violating manner should be dealt with on those violations, not solely the issue of payment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Your proposal already goes beyond the strictures of WP policy, so by your logic here your proposal must be rejected as well. And yes, you're correct that my position is for paid editors to disclose their clients. No, this doesn't border on WP:OUTING. OUTING is about personal information that exposes the editor to harm, not about confidential information. And frankly I don't give two bits about confidentiality agreements entered into by parties who are subverting our project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, I'm not sure if you've read the rubbish you've just written or not, but OUTING doesn't directly expose an editor to harm, and forcing people to disclose confidential information definitely COULD expose an editor to harm anyway. And again, you're buying into the myth that every single paid editor is bad, which is quite blatantly bullshit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment This does not appear to be the right place to discuss a policy proposal. As is the proposal seems ambiguous, ("but this bit isn't required"?) also disclosure for our readers (and editors) sake will need to be on the talk page of the affected article, in addition to the user page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's completely ignoring most of the proposal, which deliberately avoids the thorny issue of disclosing confidential information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      8. Oppose per unenforceable due to privacy policies of WMF. NE Ent 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What privacy policies? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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 - TP 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Also liking this idea. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Indeed, this is probably why they are successful. Their editors are pre-certified. Jehochman Talk 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well the idea was more general than just Wikiexperts. I'm talking about paid editor companies all around.--v/r - TP 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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 - TP 02:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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 - TP 03:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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 - TP 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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 - TP 00:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      So far as I am aware, no one has objected to John Broughton making money from sales of Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. If an author can profitably write a book about how to edit Wikipedia, why can't an instructor profitably teach a course on the same subject matter? Why can't an expert individually advise a client on the same subject matter? bd2412 T 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Don’t know if they have a formal programme, but there’s WP:CO-OP.—Odysseus1479 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      So I take it consensus indicates its an idea so bad, it will stampede an octopus. Irondome (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      It already exists. It's called Wikia. It's full of ads and promotion. Most of the content is fancruft. That's what a "business-friendly wiki" looks like.John Nagle (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      What they support is in fact unconditional removal of ban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually there are at least 11 !votes under the unban proposal for conditional support, the condition being that all this company's COI accounts here are openly declared. That's just a first count. There are probably more if you read the various statements carefully. So I think Hobit's question is very apt. Voceditenore (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, you are right. And since they are not going to declare their current, but only future accounts (if I understand correctly from their statement below), these 11 vote probably should count as "oppose"... My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I asked on his talk page and the following is the reply to the question above (Mojoworker (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)):[reply]
      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))[reply]
      This is probably unrealistic, but I would love a requirement that editors working for a paid editing company be required to put in, say, 500 productive article-space edits per month on topics unrelated to any of the company's paying customers. Think of the typos to be fixed! The uncited assertions to be sourced! The disambiguation links to be fixed! bd2412 T 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Requiring that sounds unworkable, but we could come up with some scheme to review and rank paid editors according to how much volunteer work they do, and urge uninvolved editors to take that into account when they decide who to work with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks all, I appreciate everyone working to make this clear. Personally, I don't think this goes far enough. I'd certainly want a list of all articles/subjects they were hired to edit before I'd think it reasonable to have them come back. It's pretty standard to ask people to clean up their own messes or help others clean them up before getting restrictions lifted. If they signed non-disclosure agreements, that isn't our problem IMO. But I am pleased we have some idea how things would improve. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The defense that WikiExperts has "no ability to reveal the past clients" because of "previously signed NDAs" is legally specious. WikiExperts, its clients, and its employees/contractors are fully able to renegotiate and/or rescind any NDAs as necessary, and they all have the incentive to do so. So I call Mr. Konanykhin's bluff on that point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Slimvirgin here is the answer to your question above. It appears that WIkiExperts does not intend to follow the COI guideline, in that they do intend to edit pages directly as opposed to limiting themselves to suggesting content on Talk. The relevant quote is "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." I have posted the question directly to User:AKonanykhin; I will copy the reply here when it comes.Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Motion for closure

      I think the length of the thread has gotten to the point where the average editor will not invest the time to read it all and make a thoughtful comment. Could we get an uninvolved admin, please, to read this and record what the result is? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This proposal is indeed hard to read. There is a problem with there being 2 distinct questions 1) whether the 1st banning was improper (with many editors not commenting on this) and 2) whether Wiki-experts et al should be unbanned. There is also the problem that many editors expressed conditional support for unbanning, but the conditions vary and it's not clear whether any of the conditions have been met. These !votes will have to be read very carefully.
      Due to the complexity of the proposal, I'll suggest that 3 univolved admins work on this, make separate counts and then compare notes. FWIW, on the 1st question, whether the 1st banning was improper, I count 16 saying it was proper and 10 saying it was improper. On the 2nd question, unbanning, I count 22 opposing unbanning, 13 conditionally supporting unbanning, and 21 supporting unbanning. Obviously the 13 conditional !votes are very important, but to the extent that the conditions aren't obviously met, I believe they should be counted as opposes. I don't claim that this is a perfect count, only that counting will be difficult and require more than 1 admin to do right. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      For any observers, please bear in mind that the closing admins will not only count votes, but also weight them by quality of reason. If it comes down to a conditional unbanning, I request that the unbanning conditions be proposed to the subject, and that they have a chance to agree to them. There might be a disparity between what the subject agreed to already and what will be required. That may be due to the subject (understandably) not knowing the requirements. If the closing admins can make the unbanning conditions clear, that would be helpful. Thank you for your efforts. Jehochman Talk 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no consensus to unban this editor. Unless his outfit can prove that they are completely different from something like WikiPR, the outcome is going to be similar. Doc talk 07:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      WikiPR was creating low quality spam articles. I don't know what this editor did wrong because even after many requests, nobody has posted diffs showing evidence of wrongdoing. There's been guilt by association (a false impression that this group is the same as WikiPR), guilt by assumption (they are paid, they must be bad), and guilt by mass hysteria (OMG paid editing is so bad, let's ban somebody!!1!) but no actual evidence. It has been a shocking display of poor judgment by some of the participating editors and especially by the admin who closed the original discussion. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Doc, I very much disagree with your point of view on this (the strength of the arguments to keep the ban are rather flimsy in my eyes and held by a minority of votes), but that is besides the point--it is not up to those involved in this discussion to decide on the state of consensus. I also highly disagree with @Smallbones, who is trying to use his misinterpretation of the banning language to whitewash the original intentions of those that voted in a support of unbanning. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose early closure The fact that many editors have expressed an opinion is no reason to short-circuit the normal process and close early. Right now there are 20 comments labeled "Oppose" (meaning oppose the unban, keep the ban) and 38 comments labeled "Support" (meaning support the unban, remove the ban). Of course such a rough count isn't at all definitive, but that just supports the need to wait the full 30 days and then have an experienced and uninvolved closer give us the final answer concerning consensus. There is only one valid reason to close early -- WP:SNOW -- and it does not apply here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the user has the right to have his appeal decided faster than 30 days. Nowhere has it been established that we must wait a certain amount of time. Moreover, as I said already, this thread has become very long and convoluted, and the flow of fresh opinions has dried to a trickle. There isn't much benefit to letting the same partisans argue their positions; this only makes the thread longer without providing further insights. Jehochman Talk 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The two editors immediately above clearly don't know the rules on the time required for a community ban. WP:CBAN says "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I should be aware because I had a hand in drafting that rule. We've waited way, way longer than 24 hours. The 30 days is typical of an RfC, which this is not. Jehochman Talk 20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Informational note: I have asked User:AKonanykhin directly if WikiExperts intends to edit pages. I did that, because although he promised several times to abide by the COI guideline, he also wrote things that made it seem as though they do intend to directly edit articles, even though the guideline clearly and strongly discourages conflicted editors from doing so. Since the initial ban arose from their bluntly aggressive interpretation of our guidelines and policies in their favor, it seemed like an important question to get clarification on. The answer was a great example (to me) of avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. I re-asked and have not been answered yet. The brief dialogue is here. Would you like to wait for closure until there is a response? Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm concerned that this might be an instance of violating our rules against the harassment of banned editors. Isn't stating that one will abide by all COI guidelines the same thing as stating you'll abide by each of them as they are being pointing out one by one :) In addition, giving your own personal context to rebuttals given by banned editors instead of allowing their words to stand on their own (and commenting after the fact) seems rather unsavoury to me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Jeremy112233 sorry you see this as unsavory. I am just trying to ascertain how User:AKonanykhin will interpret that - please recall that they said before, that they were abiding by WIkipedia's rules.... it was worth it to me at least, to find out what that means, now and in this case. AKonanykhin has replied to my question. The question and answer are copied below.

      Hi AKonanykhin

      You have said that WIkiExperts will abide by the COI guideline. That guideline reads, very clearly: "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."

      Above, you wrote: "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." Based on this, it appears that WIkiExperts does intend to edit articles directly. So to avoid any confusion, would you please give a yes/no to this question: If unbanned, will WikiExperts directly edit articles? Also, if the answer is "yes" would you please explain how you square that with the very clear advice in the guideline? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


      User:Jytdog - We intend to follow COI Guidlines in its strictest sense, as a policy. There are any number of aspects of the Guidelines, and we will follow all of them. Would you mind posting my response to your question to the AN thread? AKonanykhin (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for replying! However before I relay this to the board, would you please answer the question I asked above? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't want to provide a direct answer, I will be happy to copy your answer above but will include a note that I asked twice for a direct answer and didn't receive one. If your goal is to gain trust this is not a great approach... Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Jytdog - My response is that I will follow COI guidelines to the letter, abiding by all parts as if it is policy, as requested. That includes all parts of the guidelines, including the non-posting of material directly to the page if it can be in any way construed as controversial, and the alert of a COI to all such edits so that they can be reviewed by others if they so choose. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is becoming a bit more clear. So the COI guideline says that paid advocates (like WikiExperts) are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral". It sounds like you interpret "areas" narrowly. Let's say you had a client, Company X. It sounds like you would consider a neutral fact about Company X, like the date Company X was founded, as not being included in "areas", and you would indeed directly edit that kind of content in an article about Company X. On the other hand, it sounds like you would interpret some controversial activity of Company X to be within "areas" and therefore WikiExperts would not directly edit content about that controversial activity. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please clarify! Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There will be no efforts to circumvent COI guidelines whatsoever, and our reading has often been more strict that those of others. A non-controversial fact would be pretty straightforward, such as having the founding date of a company and a New York Times article that states that date and no other article contradicting the date, which could be added in tandem with the Times article as a source. Apart from such exceptionally clear-cut facts, pretty much nothing is non-controversial, so we will be posting all other kinds of material to talk pages instead of direct editing, so that the material can be first reviewed by the community. AKonanykhin (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the further explanation. Copying this to the discussion now. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey Jytdog - AKonanykhin has already given you the answer - he will abide by the COI policy. Quit trying to bait him into saying something that the policy does not say. The policy does not forbid editing. It's a suggestion. End of story. And you know that's true because you're trying to get him to specifically say what you want him to say instead of saying he will abide by the COI policy.--v/r - TP 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, according to WP:COI, "paid advocates" are only "discouraged" but not forbidden from direct editing any articles they want. This should not be a problem if they honestly disclose their COI, and more important, their work on behalf of an external propaganda organization. However, according to statements by AKonanykhin, they did not (and will not) disclose anything with respect to their recent and current editing and editors - for whatever reason no one here should care about. That's why I can not support lifting this ban.My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      @Jytdog - Glad to see the dialogue here now, no offence meant, just making sure we're following policy :) Good useful information here at the end of the day! Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      No disclosure of earlier edits. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Summary and recommendation

      As I have not contributed above, I might have the right to close, but if I were to now evaluate the consensus of the community -- and by consensus I do not mean agreement, which we do not have, but rather a settlement which most of us can live with--I would say that the consensus has a remarkable similarity to my own opinion. I therefore think it better just to summarize and recommendation.

      1. We are not agreed whether it would be desirable to absolutely prohibit paid editing, but I think everyone is agreed that we have no way of preventing it.
      2. We are all agreed that since it exists and we cannot prevent it, it needs to be controlled and carefully watched
      3. We are generally agreed that self-identification of paid editors should be required, I think it therefore follows from our general policy on user accounts that this is required of each individual account.
      4. We are not agreed on whether or not it is ever permissible for an editor to introduce a new article for which they are paid directly into mainspace, but we are generally agreed that this is permissible via AfC, and probably also in user space. We are generally agreed that the move to mainspace must be done by or with the approval of an uninvolved editor
      5. We are essentially all agreed that this firm of editors have violated multiple rules in the past, having engaged in meatpuppetry and undeclared COI editing. We are essentially all agreed that they have used many tactics to try to deny this, and avoid complying with out plainly stated rules. I think there is general agreement that in such a situation Kudpung's ban was justified, whether or not it strictly complied with the usual way we place such bans.
      6. We are not agreed on the likelihood that the firm will follow the rules in the future, or about their good faith in offering to do so. But I think we are generally agreed that they have at least made a clear offer to follow our rules in all respects without their customary quibbling.
      7. I think we are agreed that in such situations we normally afford the user the opportunity of a final chance. I think most of us feel that it would be warranted here, though some are of the opinion that the likelihood of their actual success in following the rules is not very great. There are varying opinions of whether it would even be possible for them to follow the rules--whether the scrutiny that the articles would receive would accept the notability and freedom from promotionalism of their articles.
      8. While I do not see how we can require the disclosure of previous edits, if they have made a contractual commitment to their customers. I think we are essentially all agreed that they must not use such a reason to avoid self-identification in the future, I suppose this implies they make sure their present and future customers realise this, and that they say so explicitly in their advertisements.
      9. As comments, I note that (a) some self-identified paid editors have elsewhere expressed the opinion that there is not sufficient such business to maintain a company;s existence by article-writing alone--that there are insufficient customers that are actually notable and would be willing to pay a fair rate for a truly POV article, and (b) some established rule-following paid editors seem to want us to continue the ban, in order to avoid having the taint of this firm's unsuccessful attempts affect them. I hope we will continue to judge all cases individually.
      10. I therefore suggest that we provisionally overturn the ban, requiring a commitment to follow all " bright-line" guidelines. In the case of a failure to self-identify, the ban will be replaced immediately and I see no reason for further appeals to be listened to for some time, After 6 months, the situation should be re-evaluated to see the effects of the self-identified editing. If there is the actual production of decent articles, the trial will be a success. If not, we can consider wether to simply continue under intense scrutiny, or to ban for the empirical reason that the COI of this particular group of paid editors prevents honest editing. In the later case, I do not know how we will prevent their re-emergence. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support: with a question. Are brightline rules the same as COI guidelines? If so, then definitely support. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So-called "Brightline" is a slogan that Jimmy Wales created that has been rejected by the community when attempts were made to make it part of Policy and Guidelines. So the two things are most certainly not synonymous. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you! I guess I'll have to look into brightlines more if it's different from what we were talking about. Regardless, I think DGG has done a great service here in trying to bring us all together instead of just firing off an immediate close that some might be upset with. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think DGG made many valid points, and I obviously agree with them. He is very well familiar with the case as someone who fixed problems in article about Konanykhin. However, I simply do not see consensus to overturn this ban.My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – I agree that Kudpung's reading of consensus for the ban was justified. However, the premise of the original ban proposal – which everyone's !vote was based upon – was that "(t)he 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". AKonanykhin agreed to the above stipulation eleven days ago – why are we still discussing this? DGG's point 10 handles the situation well and codifies future expectations. The ban should be lifted immediately per the wording of the original ban and if those opposing the unbanning feel they have a compelling argument, then they should propose a new, more draconian ban. Someone should close this ASAP. Mojoworker (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • oppose I don't think there is consensus to unban them at this time. And in any case, I disagree with unbanning them without them identifying their previous articles/editors. I don't believe that agreements they put in place should matter when it comes to the general requirement of coming clean with bad past behavior before being unbanned. It creates a very poor precedent. If we are going to unban them, the exact conditions (editing articles allowed? AfC allowed? etc.) should be blindingly clear. I don't believe the unban proposal above is as clear as it would need to be. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Right or wrong, the ban was worded as it was – including the terms for lifting the ban – and that wording was what everyone !voted upon. AKonanykhin has agreed to those terms. Why are we moving the goalposts? If the additional terms you're stipulating now had been specified in the original ban, it may well not have passed... Mojoworker (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I took it to mean that they'd disclose all COI/paid editing, past and future. I agree it could be read either way, but as I said, we generally expect people to either clean up their messes or at least cop to them so others can try to fix whatever messes there are before we unban anyone... Hobit (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Get it over with already please - Although I maintain my view that there was no disruption, and that the ban was utterly invalid, Kudpung's closure of the other/previous/banning thread was valid. However, it explicitly stated "(t)he 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" - as the company has agreed to do this, then the ban cannot be maintained. Doing so is punitive, not preventative, and again, I make the comment that no disruption was occurring - the last disruption of any kind came several years ago. The fact that people are still grasping at straws and looking for any way to maintain the ban is disgraceful, and goes against all Wikipedia policies - none of which prohibit COI or paid editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - however I would add to the last point, a requirement that all WikiExperts user accounts be listed somewhere in one place, like User:AKonanykhin's user page, so that the community can easily audit WikiExpert's compliance with the conditions. Otherwise it seems to me that it will be very difficult to ensure compliance.Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a fair summary of the discussion. I find paid advocacy worrying, and we need stronger policies around it. I would be glad to see a policy that disallowed PR firms from editing articlespace altogether. And I don't think WikiExperts is particularly interested in improving the encyclopedia; they're focused on satisfying a marketing niche, helping companies advertise themselves. (Even if they namecheck the 5 pillars a lot in their self-presentation.)
      However, given current policies and the language of the original ban, the proposal in point 10 seems reasonable, especially with Jytdog's addendum. That will give us a clearer understanding of how and where they work, and what the impact is; which can be reviewed in a few months, and will serve as a useful example for future discussions about this sort of editing. If we do want a permanent community ban -- for bad behavior, or because other related policies change -- it would be better to decide that separately, rather than to claim the original ban extends to this. – SJ +, on further reflection, 02:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) , 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the conditions of unban were not met. According to ban, "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". No, they did not agree to publicly disclose all their current and recent editing and editors because of their confidentiality agreement, as has been discussed above. If they did, where is this list? My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposal isn't based on the unban conditions, it states the ban itself was wrong. Thus, there is no reason that those conditions be met. I'd like them to in the future, but it is not a prerequisite. KonveyorBelt 22:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only relevant question is this: do we have a consensus to unban? Obviously, we had a prolonged discussion about this, with numerous arguments "pro" and "contra", and AKonannykin making various statements. Therefore, the most relevant subsection is the last one with votes - here. In this subsection, I counted 6 votes to keep this ban, 5 votes to unban, and 1 vote with "qualified unban". Clearly, there was no consensus at the end of discussion, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No, there were plenty of votes in both the section above and below that one. Why are you arguing that only that section should count here? Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I am not arguing that only one subsection should count. However, it is very common that during such long discussions (e.g. AfDs, RfCs) people change their views or receive additional information, which helps them to make more qualified judgement. Therefore, what people happens to realize at the end of discussion counts more, in my opinion. But whatever. I think this discussion is already dead horse, so let uninvolved admins to close or have it automatically archived in a couple of days. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As a side note, I have no idea how many people who commented and voted decided to support AKonanykhin because they have friendly relations with various PR companies and other businesses operating on this site. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Blindly accusing people of meatpuppeting will not advance this discussion. KonveyorBelt 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure that's what is going on here, I believe this is an attempt to find a solution for a question that won't go away by ignoring it. We need to know what to do moving forward now that the debate is winding down. Otherwise we'll just be arguing the same thing over and over again for weeks. The vote above is clear numerically, though the content of the arguments will be subject to the closing admin's judgement. I'm not one to dabble in subjectivity, so I would encourage anybody in the above string to recast their votes if they read all the oppose arguments and see their conditional votes as not being met in terms of their conditions. Short of that, we can't recast anything. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What is going on here? You already voted second time. You first voted to unban in the initial section, and then you voted to unban in this section. And you encourage everyone else "to recast their votes"? This is very interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to clarify this for you. This is a conversation about DGG's recommendation, an independent issue from the initial thread regarding the ban. In terms of my use of the term "recast", you are accusing people of being "duped" into conditional supports, and I'm saying that if anybody truly feels that way they should recast their votes (the original one, not placing a second one, obviously) themselves. Otherwise another person's thoughts on whether they really meant to support the ban or unban is irrelevant, so it is best to hear any changes of heart directly from the editors involved. I've seen none. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry to disagree about this. DGG (and I respect his opinion very much) suggested to close this discussion as removing the ban. That was perfectly fine. However, when new votes started to be collected in support of his proposal, this became a violation of WP:Consensus. Why? Because if this is closed as "unban" based on votes in the last sub-section, then opinions of numerous contributors who voted in three first subsections (only really relevant subsections) will be ignored. This is known in real life as disfranchisement.My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, if that happened, that would be wrong. But I'm fairly sure the closing administrator, whoever they are in the future, won't disregard the rest of the debate. Certainly this little conversation we're having here will remind them of the rest of it even in the off-chance one became confused. So I wouldn't worry about that. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - we can be satisfied by whatever method of disclosure is effective. I suggest AKonanykhin publishes a list of all his paid editors, and that any time those editors participate at a talk page, they state that they are working on behalf of WikiExperts for [drop in name of end client], and then make their request. If they provide quality content, the community will review it and add to the encyclopedia as appropriate. If they provide a stream of garbage, this activity will be banned. If they don't make proper disclosures, they be discovered eventually and banned for a very long time, per WP:ROPE. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine per SJ and my prior comments. As long as there is no claim that present and future disclosure cannot occur, for any reason (even if it provides indirect evidence of the past). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose to using this sub-section to re-vote. What should happen is simply a couple of uninvolved admins looking at the original thread/discussion about lifting the ban (three first sub-sections) and deciding if there is a consensus about this.My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You are right that there is no call for voting here. It seemed that DGG was looking for feedback on a close he had in mind, and he decided to discuss it on this page rather than in private (?) with another uninvolved admin. I appreciate that transparency. – SJ + 00:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      with another uninvolved admin? No, DGG was involved in editing article Alex Konanykhin (on a good side - to fix COI problems created by a bunch of meatpuppets) and therefore could not close this himself. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      DGG is indeed uninvolved in this debate. There is no requirement for an admin to have never approached a subject matter before in their editing careers, only that they are uninvolved in the actual debate itself as well as what led up to it. That's true in DGG's case. But on another note, I find the edit history you've referred to troubling after reviewing it. The problem I see there is the BLP-violating vandalism you yourself put forward here with a quick revert from you here (with the note that you knew you were probably wrong to change the lead in that way), in addition to removals of clearly cited material such as here or here or most troubling very recently here. I find these to be BLP violations, and I do take that kind of previous behaviour into account when looking at what you've written in this discussion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Content edits are usually considered "involvement" in the subject. For example, I am "involved". None of my edits was in any way problematic. However, if you have concerns, you can post Konanykhin at BLP noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, I did not even remember I had made two minor edits to the article on AK. I have made so many thousand such edits of BLPs that I do not remember each instance. Any involvement I have is because of previous discussions on the question of paid editing, and in trying to deal with articles from this and other paid editing sockfarms. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, sure, I remember you doing just that, and I mostly agree with your comments. But I simply do not see consensus to remove the ban. However, since I have been previously involved in editing this article (also just a little) and know too much about the subject, I indeed may have a bias. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been asked to post the following:
      User:DGG, Thank you very much for taking time to review the appeal and writing your recommendations!
      You correctly stated paid editing exists and cannot be prevented; that it’s not, in fact, prohibited. I think that this ban/unban discussion produced a great illustration of why paid editors are reluctant to disclose their CIO.
      Our concern number one is that we’d be subjected to an unfair treatment based on incorrect assumptions.
      Having seen many examples of self-promotion attempted on Wikipedia, some Wikipedians automatically assume that every paid editors is guilty of the whole array of violations. When you wrote: “We are essentially all agreed that this firm of editors have violated multiple rules in the past, having engaged in meatpuppetry”, you were accurately summarizing the opinions voiced during the discussion, but those opinions were dead wrong.
      It concerns me when the guilt is assigned with no evidence, as a knee-jerk reaction to the Wiki-PR scandal. (Some editors were actually confusing us with Wiki-PR or erroneously assuming that we are acting in the same way.)
      The second concern is a near-certainty that disclosing COI would result in being stalked by anti-paid-editing activists. I respect everybody’s right to be against paid editing, and am NOT referring to people who voted against me on this ground. Instead I’m referring to User:My very best wishes who vandalized my Wikipedia profile a few months ago and has been trying to out-talk everybody in this discussion, leaving countless comments. He’s not on Wikipedia to develop quality content – he does not do it; rather he’s dedicating a lot of time fighting because, as he wrote at 00:12 on Oct 13, “his [my] BLP does not explain where and how his initial capital came from.” This formula was used by his and my compatriots to murder hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs in Russia as “class enemies”; I’m disappointed to see such ideological activism on Wikipedia.
      We belived that, unlike RULES, the guidelines were not mandatory when a good reason existed not to follow them. The above-described problems are such reasons. I therefore believe that we did not commit any violation which would justify the ban.
      We are prepared to become the “guinea pig” to show that paid editing can result in valuable encyclopedic content written in full accordance to the Wikipedia rules, provided that the community would respect the terms it stated in the ban conditions (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 refrains from acting on “presumption of guilt”. In such case, many other paid editors may choose to declare their COI, making Wikipedia writing process more collaborative and efficient.
      I’d like to express my gratitude to you and other Wikipedians who made an effort to seek a workable solution to the paid-editing dilemma.
      Kindly copy my comment to the AN (it’s frustrating to be tried “in abstentia”)
      AKonanykhin (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I am somewhat at a loss how to respond. I see the answer as evasive, just as before. If the ed. does not realize why his action were improper in the past, he will not be able to follow through on his promise to avoid them in the future. In particular, he does not realize that it is the failure to disclose COI that will result in encountering problems, not the disclosing of it; nor does he realize that we have been engaged in proper sockpuppet enforcement, not in stalking.
      At this point I can understand why people might see no reason to believe in good faith. I am personally willing to give a last chance, as I have sufficient confidence in what I am doing here to be willing to take the risk of appearing gullible in this particular instance. Whether the community is, is up to the others. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      User:DGG, You wrote "..nor does he realize that WE have been engaged in proper sockpuppet enforcement, not in stalking" which suggests a miscommunication. At no point did I suggest that you were engaged in stalking. I only meant the person I specifically mentioned, and his actions I described (support of the ban based on "no initial capital sources disclosed" ground, vandalizing my profile, leaving countless postings, while dedicating no time to actually writing Wikipedia content). In no way was I meant to extend these examples to you or other participants of the discussion. In fact, the reason I decided to accept "100% COI Disclosure" requirement was that there were many Wikipedians who acted in a very reasonable and intelligent manner, refusing to judge on mere suspicions. I have utmost respect to absolute majority of Wikipedians, I was simply saying that stalkers do exists too. Also, by no means I was objecting to any sockpuppet enforcement. It was initiated against me and showed no sockpuppeting, for a simple reason: I did not engage in any, and neither did WikiExperts. No meat-puppeting either. We've been obeying all Wikipedia rules to the letter. We are pledged to accept the guidelines too. Respectfully, - AKonanykhin (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
      @AKonanykhin. Please check Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:NPA. Yes, I do believe that your BLP page fails WP:NPOV: it hides a lot of extremely important and highly negative details, as far as I remember. But unfortunately, I have no desire to fix these problems knowing about the army of paid editors that "exists and cannot be prevented", as you said above.My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I for one agree with DGG's point 10, provided that a failure to clearly and promptly disclose all accounts involved in COI-Paid Editing / Paid advocacy going forward should result in the ban being re-imposed. However I do not agree to his point 3. I do not feel that paid editing which does not constitute paid advocacy requires disclosure. DES (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is my problem with point 10. It tells: "In the case of a failure to self-identify, the ban will be replaced immediately". This is naive and completely unenforceable. If someone who works for PR company (in a wider sense, this can be a state-sponsored PR organization) did not self-identify, there is no way to prove that they belong to organization (the problem is not really paid editing, but organizational structure), unless they do something really stupid, like editing again BLP of their boss or leaking information. From what we know, these guys are bound by official (legal) confidentiality agreements and communicate over the phone. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's about time to decide something here - even if it is only to kick the can down the road and start anew in another month - which is what I suggest.
        • On the very important question of whether the previous banning discussion was closed improperly, there appears to be a consensus that it was not improperly closed, i.e. the ban stands until we have a consensus to change it.
        • Given that, AKonanykhin is asking for a reconsideration of the ban, a favor, and he needs to show that he understands our rules and customary ways of doing things.
        • His comments on User:My very best wishes and "being stalked by anti-paid-editing activists" suggests that he does not understand WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith
        • Further, his continued advertising *right now* at http://www.wikiexperts.us/ including "Our Wikipedia professionals write professional articles that meet both your guidelines and the stringent rules of Wikipedia" shows that he is not respecting the current ban. He is still soliciting customers by saying he can write articles while respecting our rules, without saying that he is under a community ban. This strikes me as a logical impossibility. It also strikes me as being against US law on misleading advertising. In any case he needs to remove the advertising while the ban is in effect to show that he respects Wikipedia rules.
        • AKonanykhin has every right to express his opinions on how Wikipedia should be run. But he should also realize that Wikipedia editors have every right to disagree with his opinions and use his opinions in forming their views on whether AKonanykhin understands how Wikipedia works and whether he will be a productive member of the community if unblocked. The opinions I refer to are that AKonanykhin has difficulty with the concept of Wikipedia being run as a nonprofit and accepting donations, rather than supporting itself by paid for ads. See this video on his front page and WikiExperts.us Founder Urges Wikipedia to Embrace Ads. If he is calling for a boycott on donations to Wikipedia, as seems to be the case, I'll suggest that he is not in tune with the community and should go elsewhere.
      • I suggest that AKonanykhin take a month to consider his current actions and whether he wants to be part of this community, not just an exploiter of the community. When he feels comfortable asking to be a part of the community, he can ask that the ban be withdrawn. In short, let's close this without prejudice, and AKonanykhin can come back in a month if he feels he is ready. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Topic ban for User:Guy Macon

      Let's not go down this path. NAC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

      I propose a topic ban on User:Guy Macon in this discussion for

      1. Calling stating that you will violate rules a "thoughtcrime". (Although I think that hate crime legislation assessing the intent of the alleged perpetrator is immoral, that wouldn't prevent conviction for stating that you will commit a crime. In fact, conspiracy (criminal) would be exactly that.)
      2. Making a WP:POINT by stating that he will violate Wikipedia rules, and "daring" admins to block him.

      The fact of the matter is that if AK violated the rules, and says he will do so again, he should be blocked. The block would be preventative, not punitive. However, GM probably shouldn't be blocked because there is no evidence that he has violated the rules. Assuming his good faith, though he should be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      One would hope that Arthur Rubin would have some diffs showing me doing the things he accuses me of, because his descriptions above are inaccurate.
      As is customary when someone says "the fact of the matter is" the actual facts don't quite match the rhetoric. Arthur says "The fact of the matter is that if AK violated the rules, and says he will do so again, he should be blocked", but he confuses two entirely separate issues, violating the rules and saying that you will violate the rules. I of course agree that some violations of the rules (not all; some should result in warnings) should be blocked, but, as Arthur is well aware, I do not agree that saying that you will violate the rules without actually violating them is a blockable offense, and I certainly don't think that what AK did, which was somewhere between saying that he should be exempt from the rules and saying the rules are stupid and should be changed, is in itself a blockable offense.
      Likewise, I flatly deny disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. What I did do is make a statement that Arthur thinks is against the rules (saying that you intend to break the rules but not actually doing so) and challenged any admin to block me for doing so. I would have done the same if he had claimed that using the word "hovercraft" is a blockable offense. Tell me that, and my reply will be "Hovercraft! There. I broke your imaginary rule. Is anyone here ready to block me for saying "hovercraft?"
      Even Arthur's reference to our conspiracy page shows either a bias towards punishing thoughtcrime or an inattention to what the pages he links to actually say. Ignoring the attempt to use a legal page to mandate Wikipedia policy, that page clearly says that one person alone cannot commit a conspiracy. See Conspiracy (crime)#Elements of the offence.
      As far as I know Arthur has never used his tools to enforce his made-up rule that one can be blocked for expressing an unpopular opinion (assuming it is done in a non-disruptive manner), but Wikipedia guidelines and policies say what you can do, not what you can think or what (on-topic) opinion you express, and Arthur should be informed that, whatever his personal feelings on the matter, he is expected to follow the guidelines and policies as written. I find it ironic that Arthur now wishes to limit my speech, but as least he is consistent. I would also ask where I was previously warned for this alleged rule violation. We don't, as a general rule, give long-term editors with a clean block record any sort of block or ban without first giving them a warning and seeing if they are willing to voluntarily comply.
      P.S.: Hovercraft. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the crime of conspiracy requires more than one person, but does not require the conspirator to know who the other person is. However, the difference between the crimes of "attempt", "solicitation", and "conspiracy" is irrelevant to this discussion.
      The point is that GM's comments in this thread are both irrelevant to the matter of AK and (to the extent that discussing the unban is not disruption) disruption of the discussion. No one else seems to accept the principle that saying you will disrupt Wikipedia is not necessarily a blockable offense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Improper use of rollback

      An editor has made an improper use of rollback here [31]. This rollback did not revert vandalism to the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, and therefore cannot be considered unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the discussion above about "poking" bears, admins may care to review Talk:Anzac Mounted Division. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, this matter is much bigger than an alleged illegal use of rollback. Among other things, it's a ridiculous ongoing edit war about whether we should write ANZAC or Anzac. The main editors involved are simply not engaging effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The rollback aspect is trivial; it merely enables one to save a few seconds when reverting. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Illegal"? Which section of the Criminal Code was broken? You'll want to notify the legal team ... ES&L 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It would probably be more helpful to cut back on the snark and reply to the substance of the complaint. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No...it would probably be best if editors did not make legal accusations that do not exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Can someone have a look at the illegal roll back? --Rskp (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Can someone explain how rollback abuse is not illegal?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Was that even a rollback or just a simple revert? I can't tell. Anyone?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Nevermind that last question. Rollback of 4 edits. [32]--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a roll back. [[33]]. Your link is not to a roll back, it is to the last of a series of edits which added a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, then...if yours was the rollback and the other editor just reverted...who is at fault for abusing their tools? Hmmmm. An explanation is now required.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mark Miller linked to the addition of a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when is adding a full stop a roll back. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • This would be snarking, I suppose becuase, I don't even have rollback privileges. What tha ...? Can someone focus on the illegal rollback linked in the first post of this discussion? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)@North8000: The aspect is not trivial - per RBK, rollback is not to be used in situations like this.
      I'm not quite sure how so many edits have been made under this header for irrelevant reasons. We know what RoslynSKP meant when they said illegal. There is no constructive reason to banter about the implication of legal action.
      That being said, I'll raise this issue with Jim Sweeney. After that, I'll stop by that article's talk page. m.o.p 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Glad someone understands this. I am still waiting for an explanation as to where the actual rollback was, but I guess just not understanding is not an excuse for asking, but thanks. I'll just wait for my general sanctions to kick in over who I associate with on Wikipedia. Thanks you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mark Miller: This is a rollback. m.o.p 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I believe you. Now... why does the history not say it was a rollback? The only such rollback the history shows (and I admit my ignorance on this) is the last edit by Rskp? I am not trying to be an ass. I guess I am just one by nature and just need an explanation as to why, from my view of the situation, I only see a single rollback being done and not by the accused editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mark Miller: That's what a rollback looks like. You can tell due to it being marked minor, the text linking to Help:Reverting, and the layout of the edit summary. Also, RoslynSKP physically couldn't have performed a rollback, as they don't have the necessary privilege. m.o.p 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not the first time this editor has abused rollback privileges. See here [34] --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      By the way, as someone with rollback...if the editor abused it, take it away. Of that much...I will agree. But will not support using language that exaggerates the situation in any way. Thanks m.o.p!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh, and lacking a bit of good faith. Considering our community's diverse composition (amongst English-speaking peoples), it is geocentric to assume the context of ones prose, basing it on your norms alone. With so many soccer fans, and football too, as well as many other sports, "illegal use of" is nearly synonymous with "unsportsmanlike conduct" and proof that "illegal" is not exclusive to jurisprudence. Tighten up sir.—John Cline (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      See Talk:Third Transjordan attack [35] here for discussion and link to the first instance. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Unsubstantiated impugning of reputation

      This issue has been dragging on across multiple articles relating to the Palestinian theatre of WW1 for about a year now (possibly longer). As one of the coordinators of the military history project I've commented in a few of the relevant discussions, but haven't used the admin tools given that I've had lots of interactions with the editors involved. My consistent perception of this dispute is that its RoslynSKP against the world: he or she has their preferred names for articles and units (which tend to be a bit old-fashioned, and don't take into account the fact that there are often different terms used for the same thing in this particular topic) and consistently takes a combative attitude to try to enforce this. Calling improper use of rollback "Illegal" is typical of RoslynSKP's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach - instead of trying to reach consensus through calm discussion, he or she routinely escalates disputes. The various editors RoslynSKP fights with are all in good standing, and often seem pretty fed up with dealing with them. As the archive box at the top of Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division shows, RoslynSKP has tried to move this article to a different name five times since January 2012 (including a move review request) - four of these attempts have been made since mid-September this year. While Jim shouldn't have used rollback here, it's not hard to see how such stubborn and disruptive behaviour would wear down other editors. The fact that RoslynSKP dismissed the results of all the move requests by saying that "these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet." a couple of days ago says it all really: this is not constructive conduct, and suggests a complete inability to drop the stick and move on over this issue. This thread appears to be an attempt to change the battleground and distract attention away from their prolonged disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Nick-D your link regarding the carpet does not work. --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      while you're at it, could you please move Henry G. Chauvel back to Harry Chauvel for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Just passing by ... Graham87 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Nick-D on this. My view is that failure to achieve a positive result on one battleground (repeated RMs) has resulted in a move to a new battleground. At this rate, this is going to end up at ARBCOM and some editors are going to wish they hadn't escalated this. To deter continuation of this behaviour, a boomerang is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I also concur with Nick-D's take on this. I had a few encounters with Rskp after I responded to a GOCE request for an article in the WWI scope. If the response I got from Rskp later is any example to go by, and judging by their behaviour at RM, then they have significant ownership issues with anything they edit. During the course of my copy edit of the article, they would systematically go back and effectively revert many of the changes I had made. Normally, that wouldn't be much of an issue as that's the nature of WP, but when the end result is more verbose and difficult to read than was afte the copy edit, it's moe than jus a little annoying. A later discussion on the material in the article, I posited an opinion, which was responded to in an unnecesarily dismissive fashion entirely non-conducive of a collegial environment. However, rather than edit war over it, I notified Jim Sweeney as he was a major contributor to the article and left it to them to hash it out. Crisco1942 subsequently protected the article to stop the ensuing edit war. This single interaction with Rskp soured my taste for future interactions and I have subsquently made a point of not taking up articles within the WWI scope that they've been involved in, which I find somewhat sad as I am Australian as they are. Rskp is a polific writer in WWI, particularly on the ANZAC contributions to the war effort and that is laudable, but their interactions with other editors is leaves much to be desired. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jim Sweeney cut the Populations living on the battlefields subsection of the article after it had reached GA. Given that the article was about a wide stretch of territory I thought it was useful, but Jim Sweeney is a cutter. See also Occupation of the Jordan Valley, Capture of Damascus (1918). In one instance after only five hours he cut a quote because I hadn't got round to paraphrasing it. You have blinkers on. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The comment which Blackmane took exception to was made after I had suggested leaving the subsection so readers could make up their own minds about whether the "Populations living on the battlefields" subsection was relevant as the GA reviewer had not seen a problem. Blackmane wrote" I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance" and I wrote "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light." This comments were made here [36] when Jim Sweeney wanted the subsection cut. --Rskp (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp, but I am surprised to learn that this has been an ongoing problem for more than a year. I do think its time that this was escalated - by which I mean page protections and blocking - so the rest of us can work in peace. I agree with Peacemaker - this is gonna end up at arbcom sooner or later unless one or more of us man up and lay down the law such as it were. It's not pleasant (it never is) however that doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be done. And judging by this post, it needs to be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think people are starting to recognize the point of my first post (the one referred to as "snark"). The OP seems ot have a pretty serious history of problematic editing. In order to get his "preferred version" or at least one of his opponents potentially blocked, he used an inflammatory heading: "illegal use of...". This was designed to get immediate eyes, and immediate action in his favour. However, in doing so, he may have whipped out his giant AN boomerang. ES&L 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it is worth I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over several years, including quite a few disagreements, so I am hardly an uninvolved editor here. That said I fully endorse Nick-Ds cmts as an accurate, considered and remarkably restrained summary of her behaviour and I think this complaint needs to be considered in this context. Further scrutiny, and potentially sanction, is needed here. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I first interacted with Rskp quite about two years and tried to assist them to understand Wikipedia policies and generally help out. At first, I was very keen to help Rspk with their articles as I felt her work had the potential to go to featured status and wanted to help (I still think this, and I still want to help); however, because of the way in which Rskp has interacted with other editors, I have limited my involvement greatly over the past year because frankly working with them is not fun and quite stressful. A key part of working on Wikipedia is the ability to collaborate. That sometimes means compromising, accepting consensus (even when it goes against you), and moving on in the interests of progressing an article. It also means assuming good faith, maintaining a degree of friendliness and accepting that it isn't a case of "one editor against the world". I agree with Nick-D's summary, particularly in relation to WP:BATTLEGROUND. On a number of occasions I have witnessed this editor WP:EDITWARRING rather than seriously discussing the issues in a collaborative manner and attempting to gain consensus (for instance [37], [38], [39] as examples). When other editors attempt to discuss the issues, these attempts usually meet with frustration. If they disagree with Rskp, their talk page posts have on a number of occasions been dismissed as "personal attacks", at which point Rskp has refactored those editors' comments, essentially removing them for anyone to read (for instance this just today: [40]), and/or the intentions, actions or opinions of those in disagreement with Rskp are derided on Rskp's user page, which frankly borders on an attack page in my opinion. Further, efforts to come up with compromise solutions are greeted with responses using language that is not conducive to creating a collegiate editing environment. For instance, an attempt by myself to resolve one of the issues of contention on the Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division article (i.e. the issue of whether to use the term "Ottoman Empire" or "Turkey") is basically labelled as a conspiracy because a couple of editors happen to disagree with Rskp's interpretation. I will reiterate, I have no dog in that fight and frankly don't care what term is used, but I do want editors to stop constantly reverting and actually attempt to progress the article; that is what I would like to see from this whole episode across all the articles affected. Everyone take a step back, take a deep breath and find a way to collaborate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • AustralianRupert I am at a complete loss to understand your three links regarding attempting to gain consensus. They are in fact to other editors' reinstating Harry Chauvel twice and a change of file name, all of which stand. And your final link is to the personal attack made on the Talk:Anzac Mounted Division article which I identified as offensive and collapsed a couple of times. Then when reverted, I twice attempted to add the Remove Personal Attack tag, both of which have been cut. And remain cut. I thought when a personal attack was made on an editor, when I was insulted and disparaged, "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done" and so I took steps to cut the comments. I really don't understand you at all. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • AustralianRupert I am also completely at a loss regarding your comments considering the very good working relationship we have been enjoying during our editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), and there are many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully to improve articles and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rskp, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you called my intentions into question here: [41] I was trying to promote collaboration by seeking a compromise to one of the issues that had developed between you and Jim, but your "the lock step trio" comment essentially labels my efforts and anyone else's as being part of some conspiracy. That does not produce a collaborative editing environment and frankly, I took it to be a personal attack. I remain impressed with your articles, and the effort you have put into the Sinai-Palestine topic, but I remain concerned about your ability to collaborate. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, AustralianRupert, you are right. That was not a well thought out comment on your contribution. I was unfortunately expressing my exasperation. For that I apologise to you. But really, it was the Ottoman Empire which was fighting during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. While I acknowledge that Turkey existed in the 13th century (I think) and was re-established after the war, but using Turkey during S&P can only be pejorative and POV. --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      G'day, I appreciate your apology. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments On top of the snarking about the improper rollback, now I am being impugned, here on the Administrators' noticeboard. I thought this was supposed to be a place to go for resolution not to be subject to attacks. I have been amazed at the level of harrassment that I have been subject to during my editing of Wikipedia. I made one comment to do with the issue of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey here [42] In 1299 it might well have been the Turkish Empire, but the Anzac Mounted Division is about the First World War, when the country was the Ottoman Empire. Many english language publications refer to Turkey, its pejorative in this context, and POV. The fact that this was the second time the editor had made improper use of the rollback has gone completely unnoticed in the rush to impugn me. See here [43]. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Regarding the move of the Harry Chauvel article as soon as the Trove information was forthcoming, I immediately voted for a return to Harry Chauvel. I had been comparing Harry Chauvel with Edmund Allenby, Philip Chetwode et al and thought it was wrong to have him the only one with a nickname. The Trove survey alerted me to the extremely wide use of the name Harry Chauvel and my reaction was immediate here [44]--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the personal attack and my several attempts to collapse and then to add a REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS tag, these have all been undone. This is despite the comments being insulting. They disparaged me, and according to Wikipedia "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done". Why should I have to go to ANI what ever that is? Why is it not possible to add a personal attack tag without it being cut? This links to the final revert [45] Why is it not possible to collapse a personal attack?--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue of the Anzac Mounted Division attempts to move the article are clearly on holiday for two months.
      • However, as the article itself has developed into a battleground for the names of the division, I thought it was important to add the sources for all those names, so readers could clearly evaluate the situation. However, using the British official historian for the first and second mentions has been repeatedly undone in what I am beginning to think of an an OWNERSHIP issue. See discussion here [46] Now I see that the links are to the Australian War Memorial Web Site and the War Diary. Given the limited use War Diaries can be used as sources, I would have thought the British official history of the campaign a better source for these two versions of the name of the division. Further the editor refused to accept that Powles book formed part of the official New Zealand history, repeatedly cutting it. Even when it is clear that its the third volume of the official history. See discussion here [47] On top of that the citation to the Australian War Memorial's copy of the Australian official history's contents page has been repeatedly mangled. See discussion here [48] The other editor was under a misconception that the link was to a particular page in the history and not to the contents page. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ownership. Given that these are among the few edits to the Anzac Mounted Division article that I have made, the amount of edit waring associated with them points very clearly to Ownership problems by the same editor who made the illegal rollback. But it appears any criticism of that editor is not to be heard. What about my work? What about all the articles that have been written or rewritten which have got to GA? Don't I have good standing? --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [49] for related edit warring discussion. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry my mistake. There has been no discussion about the edit warring at this link. Its only been mentioned once during the rollback discussion, and twice during Nick-D's unsubstantiated contribution. --Rskp (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There continues to be no discussion of Jim Sweeney's dubious reporting of an edit war. After pointing out the problems with the links that editor provided to substantiate the report, nothing has been done, except for linking it to this discussion, which has not dealt with the edit war element at all. Further I am still waiting for some form of, at the very least, recognition of the extremely dubious nature of the series of posts in this subsection of the Administrators' noticeboard. The unsubstantiated impugning of my reputation should not continue to be ignored. --Rskp (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The word is "impugn". The header you added made it look like Nick-D was the misspeller. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Call for sanctions for impugning reputation

      What can be done to correct these wrongs? --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Well as you're no doubt aware of there is some discussion below about opening and RFC/U on the matter. Outside the RFC/U there's the usual stuff: block editor(s), protect page(s), find consensus, etc. Its unlikely that this is gonna end soon, and its unlikely that either party's gonna walk away happy when the dust settles, but it will give the rest of us our course of action for how to approach the matter vis-a-vis your actions and the actions of the other editor(s). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, you misunderstand me. I am talking only about the impugning of my reputation by editors here on the Administrators' noticeboard - just above. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      TomStar81 said above: "To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp." What is this comment based on? Certainly all the other comments above are equally unsubstantiated. This impugns my reputation and requires expunging at least. --Rskp (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that you're more concerned about your reputation than the editorial issues presented above reinforces my belief that interacting with you will be to my misfortune. People who can not accept responsibility for their actions, or their part in a larger action, bug me because any effort to correct the troublesome behavior in a civilized manner fails before it even starts due to the other editors inability to recognize a problem with the edits in the first place. As the first step to fixing any issue is recognizing that you bare some responsibility for the situation in the first place, and you have yet to reach that revelation, I am firmly convinced that any attempt we (by which I mean the community) make to act with the best interest of the article(s) in question will end up repeatedly undermined by you. Worse still for the rest of us will be the long and never ending string of insults and other unpleasant posts from you that we will have to deal with, which will likely take the form of either a long and drawn out temper tantrum or a stubborn refusal to admit any fault on your part by blaming everyone else for your shortcomings or failures with the material in question (in short, by being an ass). While I do find it admirable that you believe that you stand for something, on this site you need learn diplomacy and acceptance of those positions that run counter to your thinking, otherwise you'll end up back here again, and that will be your reputation whether you like it or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a minute.
      1. The reporting of the rollback was found to be perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was clearly dealt with by Master of Puppets also. See above.
      2. Jim Sweeney's appeal to the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the edit war has been noted as being referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but has so far not made it there.

      I simply have no idea what TomStar81 is talking about, and I suspect he doesn't either, because the number of articles which have been improved to B-class and GA, which I have been associated with, prove that I can and do collaborate with Wikipedia editors, all the time. So, I can't understand the attitude of the editors who have impugned me. They haven't even followed basic etiquette and have made personal attacks. These are banned on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, where a personal attack is considered to be accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence. Serious attacks, (which have been made here), need serious evidence in the form of diffs and links e.g. TomStar81's most recent uninformed/misinformed edit which doesn't have one link or diff. In any case, all the links and diffs which have been added in this discussion don't substantiate any of the accusations. These need to be fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitrary break

      It's pretty obvious that the ensuing commentary has taken this into the realm of an RFC/U. Perhaps it would be preferable to put a pause on further additional commentary and reserve it for the RFC/U that will probably be inevitable? Should this be wrapped up as "no consensus that rollback was abused"? Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      If you're gonna move the discussion to a new venue then leave a link behind so we can find the new location for the talk. That's all I ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I cannot understand your negative comments, considering the very good working relationship I have been enjoying with AustralianRupert, during our collaborative editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia). And there are many, many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully, to improve articles, and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be willing to participate in an RFCU. I have never worked with this person but the diffs and the discussion here bring to the unfortunate conclusion that there is a battleground attitude which must be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Likewise. I've never done an RFCU, but as a coordinator for milhist I feel I've an obligation to the editors of the project to resolve this problem so we can all edit in peace (or what passes for it) here on the site. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What are you talking about? Those diffs don't support any of the wildly imaginative personal comments directed at me. Nick-D's one diff does not work, he was informed of this on 3 November. AustralianRupert's first diff links to an edit by KylieTastic, the second to an edit by Sadads, the third to an edit by Anotherclown, the fourth relates to a personal attack on me which I cut. All the other diffs are either mine or Master of Puppets'. There is simply no evidence to support the attacks by "Cloud Cuckoo Land" editors, many of whom acknowledge they have never had any contact with me! What tha!!

      Further, the reporting of the rollback was perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was corrected by Master of Puppets also. Further this is not the first time that an improper rollback has been made by the same editor. See here [50]

      Nor is this the first time that I have been attacked here on the Administrators' notice board. See here [51] when the disruptive edits complete with diffs which I hoped would be investigated, were never even discussed. --Rskp (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Rskp, to clarify, my links were not diffs to any specific users' edits, my links were to the articles' history pages showing all edits made to those pages in an attempt to show the general editing trends on those pages. I understand, though, that I could have been clearer in stating that, or in what I was attempting to show. Sorry for the confusion, please accept my apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that AustralianRupert. The first link was regarding the renaming of a file and I did attempt to discuss the matter here [52] on Widr's userpage. The second link to the Battle of Megiddo is interesting because the article is developing despite each of my contributions being strongly contested. I would suggest there is an ownership problem with another editor of this article. But I have been endeavouring to work around it in a cooperative fashion, rather than confront the editor. Your third link to the Capture of Damascus can only be regarding the IP who deleted the article during the 95th anniversary because that anonymous editor thought there were too many long quotes. Having put the article out of Wikipedia the IP didn't even complete the process of getting the article accessed and so it languished for over a week. What particular behaviour of mine was so at fault here? Certainly not collaboration as the talk page of that article will verify. The fourth link is when the Remove Personal Attack tag was reinstated by me (Undid revision 579701134 by Abraham, B.S. (talk)This is the 2nd time tag reinstated. Insulting or disparaging an editor is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done). A quick look at Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks will show that evidence should be produced when none was forthcoming. On a number of occasions I have attempted to replace offensive posts with the tag only to have the tag cut and the offensive posts reinstated. This is against Wikipedia policy. Or have it got it wrong? Can you tell me why you think that particular edit, is not a personal attack? --Rskp (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb open for more than one month

      Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb have been open for more than one month. Can someone please close these two threads? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      To clarify, he means they have been at Requests for closure for a month. The first is still open and the second is four different editors contesting a non-admin closure pbp 00:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The first one Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas I've got, just compiling my notes, hope to have closed by Tuesday. Herostratus (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to formally note that jax's posts to prevent this from archiving are as annoying as a half-inch congealed booger high up in the nasal cavity ES&L 01:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Bump. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      General sanction notices by non-admins

      It's my understanding that, when there's a general sanction affecting an article, an administrator has the option of placing an editor on notice by warning them and then noting the warning on the sanction page, like this. I would appreciate some clarification about non-admin notices, like this. In particular, are they allowed and are they treated like admin notices? MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I answered this question here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The template ends with "This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:AEGS." so how can an involved non-administrator give an effective notice?! MilesMoney (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You need to read what I wrote at AQFT's talk page. You also need to read WP:AEGS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      At the moment, the template reads, "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
      The ambiguous part is "despite being warned". Do we mean warned by any uninvolved administrator or just some involved editor trying to undermine someone they see as an opponent? MilesMoney (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of your problem is your focus on "opponents". If I were you, I'd spend more time trying to change your mindset rather than wikilawyer the language of the template. I don't think I'm getting through to you (I'm referring in part to our previous discussion on my talk page), so I'll let others try.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my experience, the "warning" part is to make 100% sure that people editing articles under sanctions are aware that there are sanctions, and as far as I can tell, all the regulars here, who participated in the AN/I thread, are sufficiently aware of the sanctions. In other words, I think this arguing about who has been "warned" and who hasn't is overly bureaucratic, since everyone doing the arguing knows about the sanctions. If we insist on the bureaucracy, I suppose we could simply give a formal "warning" for all the users involved here and move on. Is this what people want? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There are two distinct things here. The first is that rules about sanctions make frequent mention of ensuring that the editor is aware of sanctions, so editors must be warned of them. Since Steeletrap voted to approve those sanctions, it's a bit pointless to officially remind her.
      The second thing is a concrete warning. For example, I received one from Arsten regarding Ayn Rand, somewhat redundantly ordering me to accept the RfC that I had already accepted, lest I be article-banned. That's a formal warning, and it's the first strike, to be followed by a more violent second strike.
      Now, pretty much anyone can notify an editor that there are sanctions, but I can't imagine anyone but an uninvolved admin leaving a warning. Can you? MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I seem to remember warning people about sanctions before I was admin. I don't think I used the template, though, cause I'm not a template kind of person. Those were 1RR sanctions imposed by Arbcom, so maybe that's different? I dunno. If you're looking at this as getting getting two "strikes" before you're out, I think you're looking at it entirely the wrong way. I would compare it to looking at the 3RR rule as getting three "free" reverts... ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It depends on the terms of the sanction -- 3rr anyone can give. The specific sanction for Austrian Economics in question says "admin," the draft ArbCom put out for their general sanctions said any editor... it's pretty much RTM. NE Ent 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      [ec]::I think the question is this -- as I understood it: The Sanctions say, Editor A may be warned, and if the behavior is repeated then Editor A may then be blocked. I understood these formal notices to be the unambiguous, specific and official warning that would activate the Admin's prerogative to block if the behavior were repeated. Obviously any editor may warn any other if for legitimate cause, without having to do so on the official Sanctions log. So how can there be an official posting on the log by a non-Admin who does not have the authority to block? We already have a template on the talk page identifying the article as subject to Sanctions. Moreover, the prohibited behavior is not allowed anywhere on WP, so even if an editor were not previously aware that the article is under Sanctions there can be no problem with a formal Admin warning and subsequent block if warning is violated. I don't see what purpose an additional "informational" non-Admin warning would serve. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've reverted the logged warning as invalid -- the draft language I plagiarized re used under creative commons share alike said "admin," the close of the discussion said "admin". NE Ent 03:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't think we're done here. NE Ent's interpretation of the sanctions may be one possible interpretation, but it's not necessarily the correct one, and it's certainly not the only one. When you add past practice to the language, I believe a different interpretation is more reasonable. But let's start with the relevant language (just the first sentence):

      Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

      The issue is whether the phrase "despite being warned" implies that the admin who imposes the sanctions must also be the user who issued the warning or whether it means that the sanctioned user had to have been previously warned by anyone. FWIW, I interpreted it to mean the latter; apparently, NE Ent believes it is the former.

      We had a discussion about different sanctions once before and whether a non-admin could issue a warning using a similar template. The result was that a non-admin could not use a template that said it was being issued by an admin but they could use the template's language in a hand-crafted warning that eliminated the assertion that they were an admin. As A Quest For Knowledge states on his talk page (in response to what I said there), "I do know for a fact that in AE enforced discretionary sanctions, any editor is allowed to make these warnings/notifications." My experience with ArbCom sanctions (I don't have experience with all of them) is the same, although I stress again that it's unusual for a non-admin to issue the warning. Taking WP:ARBPIA as an example, the language there about notifications is: "For convenience, the template {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information." At WP:AEGS, I used that identical language (except for the template): "For convenience, the template {{Austrian economics enforcement}} may be used by an administrator, or an individual message containing the same information."

      Based on NE Ent's statements above, I imagine he would say that it doesn't matter what ARBPIA says. Nor does it matter what I wrote at AEGS if both are contradicted by the sanctions language itself. I believe, however, that all of this is evidence in support of my interpretation of the closing language. But let's also look at the authorizing language in the Remedies section of ARBPIA: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." Somewhat similar to our language, it isn't clear whether the admin must be the person who issues the warning. Certainly no one would say that the sanction-imposing admin must be the same as the warning-issuing admin as that would be silly. So, why would it imply that the editor issuing the warning must be an admin?

      Let's get back to our language. It was cloned from the mixed martial arts sanctions. If you look at the way that's been handled subsequently at WP:GS/MMA, you'll see that Hasteur, a non-admin, has several times issued warnings.

      Bottom line: I believe NE Ent is wrong. That said, I don't have a problem clarifying the sanctions to be similar to his interpretation. I prefer personally that only admins issue warnings, so NE Ent's interpretation aligns with that preference. More important, I don't think involved editors should be issuing warnings as it lends itself to abuse by the editors who are fighting with each other. (I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with an uninvolved non-admin issuing the warning, but I don't see that many uninvolved non-admins would be interested in issuing warnings in topic areas that they don't normally contribute, and often uninvolved admins issue these warnings because some editor complains to the admin, and it's less likely that the complainer would go to a non-admin.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Clarification Questions:
        • Just discovered this thread. I think it would help to clearly differentiate between the {{Austrian economics enforcement}} user talk page warning that I thought anyone can leave and the Log Notices on Austrian economics/General sanctions which I assume is what we are discussing.
        • Also, I assume any warning about any single or group of policy violations on a talk page would have some relevance, not just behavioral issues. WP:BLP already has been applied once under these sanctions.
        • Also, is there a warning template for editor(s) who reject, say, more than a dozen WP:RS for a factoid, ala this WP:RSN in the Austrian economics sanctions area??
        • Also, if there is a long term policy, is this an attempt to change it or to just change wording on this sanctions page? CM-DC surprisedtalk 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal

      I propose the first sentence of the sanctions be changed to read (the bolded phrase is the change):

      Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by an uninvolved administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

      Myself, I prefer more sentences rather than trying to squeeze everything into one, but the proposed change is a minimalist approach to what we've already got.

      • Support as proposer.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure the arbs have looked at this recently and their comments are that this is a notification not a warning and is simply drawing a users attention to the existence of the sanctions not warning them they are breaking them. On that basis this is all rather moot. Spartaz Humbug! 12:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno about "moot", but the arbitrators have looked at this issue in the context of discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee (WP:AC/DSR). The proposed language in this regard is "Any editor may alert any other editor that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict. These alerts are advisory in nature and cannot be revoked or appealed." Obviously, that means it doesn't have to be an administrator. They also eliminated the template/admin confusion by using a template that doesn't say the person issuing the warning is an administrator: "These alerts are advisory in nature and cannot be revoked or appealed. The alert links to Committee's authorisation and is issued by placing the standard template message – currently {{ArbCom-Alert}} – on the talk page of the editor being notified. Alerts must be logged." The community's sanctions don't have to be the same as ArbCom's, but an alternative to my proposal is to permit any editor to issue the notice but use a different template from the one we have now. My biggest problem with that is I don't like involved editors issuing the warning, even if the language of the warning is less threatening, although ArbCom's proposal doesn't say that the party issuing the warning has to be uninvolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If these truly are notifications about the presence of discretionary sanctions, then it shouldn't matter who tells them about it. If that is the case, instead of "by an uninvolved administrator" it should be "by any editor". VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 13:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But who would you pick to tell you? If I'd just started editing somewhere without knowing discretionary sanctions existed, then a notification from an involved editor might seem rather an aggressive act. All in all, I think I'd prefer to be told by an uninvolved admin. NebY (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - An official log of notices clearly is not a friendly FYI. It's a notice that the editor who received the notice has violated policy and that renewed violation may result in an Admin blocking the editor. The talk pages are templated with the fact that GS are in effect. No editor has the right to violate policy in any article, Sanctions or no Sanctions. Not knowing about the Sanctions is not a license to violate WP policy. @Bbb23:'s proposal is clearly in the spirit of the ANI discussion and implements the intention and spirit of the General Sanctions. The log of Notices is to verify that the warning stated in the GS has been delivered by an Admin for specific editor behavior. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I'd prefer warnings to come from an administrator in the case of discretionary sanctions, particularly as they are logged. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Logged warnings should only come from uninvolved administrators. If it's a meaningless notification, then why keep a log? If we're going to keep a record of it and use it as evidence for future potential sanctions, we should insure everything is on the up and up. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modify to read: Administrators may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being notified by any administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or expected standards of behavior or editorial process. Rationale: 1. We already have WP:INVOLVED, which goes without saying; 2. "Notified" allows for milder admonitions rather than sharper rebukes (of which I am quite aware); 3. Is a bit more terse in presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Srich, can we please just keep this simple and get done with it? @Bbb23:'s proposal gives us the wisdom of his judgment and the stature of the Admin who closed the ANI implementing the Sanctions. Involved editors such as ourselves should not try to jockey for position here, where we have the benefit of Admin attention and judgment. Please do register your Support or Oppose view, but let's not fragment and derail the process here. Gracias. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I'm not sure we have enough to close this discussion with a consensus. I don't care about whether my proposal is adopted as much as I care about clarifying the notification issue one way or the other so we don'tfight over it later on. If someone wants to propose an alternative (I don't personally like S. Rich's, partly because it changes too much, partly because it makes assumptions, and least because it's not quite grammatical), that would be okay as long as there's enough input from the community to establish a consensus. The most obvious alternative is to follow ArbCom's proposed model (I noted it above).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that the involved editors all know about this thread and AN has lots of eyes on it, so I would think you may be too cautious. I would say there is consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What makes you think involved editors all know about this thread? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it depends on what we see as a "notification" or a "warning". A notification is just someone saying "Discretionary sanctions can be imposed if necessary for editing in this area. Be aware of that." It's not an accusation of wrongdoing, just making sure someone knows the topic area is subject to sanctions. That's only fair, as not every editor on a given article may know that sanctions can be imposed there. A warning, on the other hand, is generally of the form "You have been behaving inappropriately at X in Y manner, and if you keep it up, you will be sanctioned." Since an uninvolved administrator is the only one who can actually impose such a sanction, a warning of that nature would be much less effective from anyone else. However, as I see it, the purpose of a notification requirement is to make sure editors aren't hit out of the blue with sanctions they didn't even know were possible. I don't see why someone would need to be either an administrator or uninvolved to give such a notice. In practice, at AE, we've sanctioned editors who had given such notices to others but had never technically received one themselves, because the fact that they were warning others of the sanctions clearly indicated they were themselves aware of them. Placing a highly procedural setup on such a simple notification seems to me to be pointless bureaucracy; the essence of the matter is that the sanctioned editor must be aware of the applicability of discretionary sanctions to the area they're editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I absolutely understand what you're saying, and as I've now said multiple times, all I want to do is straighten out what we will allow for these sanctions. I have no objection to allowing editors, even involved editors (although I intuitively like that less), to issue the notification, but if we're going to go that route, we need a template that is not threatening, and editors would have to use that template or at least the same language. Otherwise, things could get a bit nasty. If you prefer that, Seraphimblade, you could create an alternate proposal, and we could see what the consensus is. If you decide to do so, I'd personally appreciate a proposal that amends the closing language as little as possible to achieve the objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue we're discussing is warning notices which are logged after a specific violation of WP behavioral policies, not informational notices such as you describe, but which are not logged and may just be informal fyi's. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      With Specifico's comment in mind, the language should be Administrators may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being notified by any administrator, that editor has committed a specific violation of WP behavioral policies. I can live with that. – S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not our role to instruct the Admins as to how they exercise their authority. Your proposal is nonsense and as I said above, it's fruitless and inappropriate to diffuse this thread by trying to twist and tweak Bbb's proposal. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry that you think my proposal is nonsense. I was incorporating the phrase you had posted shortly earlier: "after a specific violation of WP behavioral policies". (And I'm sure admins will feel free to ignore my comment, but less my "instructions.") In any event, Specifico, if you have another version to suggest, please feel free to post it. – S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I said nothing to suggest that my words were intended or even appropriate as a modification of Bbb's proposal. This is now the third time I've explicitly posted to the contrary in response to you. Have you actually read my comments in this thread? If so you would know that I do not favor modifying Bbb's proposal. Srich, of all the places for you to display this kind of behavior I would guess that this is one of the most foolish and most conspicuous.likely to further tarnish your reputation here. Please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      SPECIFICO, just because you don't like S. Rich's proposal doesn't make it "nonsense". The "further tarnish your reputation" comment is a personal attack, and you should at a minimum strike it. I, happily, don't follow the endless battles in this topic area, but, generally, I am unaware that S. Rich has a tarnished reputation in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Break

      The closing statement at ANI is Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them or the administrators' noticeboard. There's nothing in there mandating or even discussing the creation of a log ( WP:AEGS ) and nothing saying an admin can't revert a bad block (as asserted at Wikipedia:AEGS#Remedies).

      It's fairly absurd that Bbb23 would write {{Austrian economics enforcement}} with the provision This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:AEGS. and then claim I'm wrong in thinking a non-admin can't post the notice.

      As Seraphimblade explains above, this has escalated from hopefully simple and useful to mini-bureaucracy. The idea -- which admittedly I didn't make crystal clear when I copy / pasted the proposal from the prior Mixed Martial Arts sanction -- was simply that an editor can place a notification on user's talk page and, if necessary later, use the diff when reporting disruption to ANI. My recommendation is that the "Remedies" and "Log of notifications" section of WP:AEGS and the overly long {{Austrian economics enforcement}} be trimmed down to pretty much just the closing statement of the ANI. NE Ent 11:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There are so many distortions in your statement that I'll just say I oppose it, even though a small part of might be unobjectionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hear, hear. The proposal is meaningless. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Non-free content review open at WP:ANRFC for over one month

      Wikipedia:Non-free content review has been open at WP:ANRFC for over one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      That's not completely true. At the time the request was made the section had more than 100 open requests in that section alone, and now it's less than ten. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply - Hoping to get it down to zero. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Concerns about editing by User:HouseOfArtaxiad

      Hello, I want to complain about the behavior of User:HouseOfArtaxiad. He is tendentiously deleting text and sources from several articles even after explanation. His edit summaries are his personal opinions and comments such as "undoing vandalism".

      Articles:

      Nazim Bey

      • first removal of sourced text without edit summary[53]
      • He was reverted[54] and did a second attempt. [55]
      • third attempt [56]
      • 4th attempt [57]
      • 5th time [58]
      • 6th time [59]
      • 7th time [60]

      List of massacres in Turkey

      • deleting a sourced massacre [61]
      • another sourced massacre [62]

      Could he get a sanction for this behavior? Many thanks. Fatbob5 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think this should have been posted at WP:AN3. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is true, but filing the wrong color form shouldn't preclude an editor (especially a new one) from getting a response.
      @Fatbob5:: The dispute at List of massacres in Turkey seems to be about the reliability of Justin McCarthy as a source for the topic. You can read/participate in the talk page discussion or post a message at WP:RSN for further review.
      @HouseOfArtaxiad:: You seem to be challenging a book published by OUP on the grounds of reliability/neutrality or whether it is being correctly cited (not really clear). However, instead of repeated reversions or communicating-through-edit-summaries alone, you need to make your case on the article talk page or appropriate noticeboard. Also note that, irrespective of whether your reverts are justified, your edit-summaries labeling Fatbob5's edits as vandalism are clearly erroneous.
      Can some admin review the situation and see if the pages need protection? Also can some editors knowledgeable about the subject area weigh in, or direct the editors to the appropriate wikiproject etc. (Feel free to move this thread to ANI, if needed.) Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abecedare asked me to have a look here. What a fine mess. HouseOfArtaxiad is (besides the personal attacks and false claims of vandalism) very clearly edit warring here; I just slapped a warning on their talk page. Their suggestion that the Ungor book is unreliable is based on nothing at all, and at any rate such a discussion ought to take place on the article talk page or on WP:RSN, not with some sneers in edit summaries ([63], [64], [65], [66]). I see no such attempt, just rather boorish summaries. And absent such a discussion, I see no reason whatsoever not to accept the book as reliable--OUP is hardly a press without a reputation. In other words, the ball is in HouseOfArtaxiad's court (I just reverted) to make their case politely, in the proper place.

        I do see problems, however: the section I just reinstated is basically plagiarized, and where changes are made they are clearly made by a non-native speaker, or someone with a less-than-perfect command of English. I'm going to have a closer look, and it may well be that intermediate revisions must be deleted for falling foul of fair use guidelines. But, in the meantime, HouseOfArtaxiad, you are hereby warned that your behavior is unacceptable and blockable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • The material was added here. I have rephrased it: this was just a copy and paste job, and I've deleted all intermediate edits. Fatbob5, you are going to have to read up on what constitutes plagiarism and the relevant policy, Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It begs the question of what else you added, and how you may have added that. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to settle this amongst the Admins, but they ignored me and pretty much left me to settle things on my own. So you all cannot portray me as being unproductive, when I was the first person to reach out and try to stop this.
      Drmies, you seem to be giving Fatbob more credit than he deserves. Justin McCarthy has already been deemed unreliable on talk page. Fat has not only reverted his lies back on the page, but you have assisted him in doing that too. There is plenty of blame to go around. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of the conduct of another editor, calling them a liar is a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      When did I call him a liar? HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Drmies Please respond or remvove your unintentional vandlaism. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what you're talking about--and "unintentional vandalism" is a Contradictio in terminis, unless "vandalism" has no relation to our definition of the term--see WP:VANDAL, and how it features the word "deliberate" in the opening sentence. There is no consensus whatsoever in that discussion on the talk page about the supposed unreliability of the Oxford UP book. I've outlined, above, what you will need to do to have a book discredited (and, in fact, Cavann pointed that way in August already. Continue with the discourse of "lies" and you will find yourself in even more trouble. For now, I can lay a charge of personal attacks and POV editing at your feet. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, asking for the second time, when did I call anyone a liar? HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Above: "Fat has not only reverted his lies back on the page, but you have assisted him in doing that too". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Andy. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So I never called him a liar or any name? Yes, thank you Andy. I was pointing out Fat is editing falifications which even go against other cited sources. I can't link it because you deleted that edit, clearly you aren't biased at all. You are contridicting yourself. First you say to dicuss things on the talk and now that isn't good enough apparently. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How do I say this without saying any naughty words? If you don't understand what's going on here, refrain from commenting. I mean, DUH. I removed the edits from the history because they were a copyright violation. Saying that I did so to further some agenda is not only incredibly ignorant, it's also a personal attack. Maybe someone will block you for it, for attacking my integrity based on what is really complete ignorance. Saying that Fatbob is adding falsifications is a personal attack as well--at least if you claim that they did it on purpose, which you did by crying "vandalism" (did you read the part about "deliberate"?). And the whole "falsification" thing is bullshit anyway, since it's your word against a book by an academic published by the OUP. In other words, it's just your opinion, which seems to be thrown in here to further some POV, cause you don't like what the book says. And what did I say? "You need to make your case on the article talk page or appropriate noticeboard." Where's the contradiction? Stop jabbering here and make your case. I don't know how many times I need to say this; perhaps my English isn't clear enough. What is clear to me, though, is that perhaps you shouldn't be editing here at all. Your command of English is lacking to the point where it seems you can't follow a basic discussion, and you think that yelling "vandalism" in edit summaries and attacking other editors' integrity is acceptable behavior. It is not. Plus, I note that a few editors have pointed out (on your talk page) that you don't appear to be very neutral. I urge other admins to see if this is worth pursuing, and I might consider filing on ANI for a topic ban, if I find more evidence of non-neutral editing. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the issue with problematic editing of HouseOfArtaxiad should be taken to WP:AE, and admins should look into placing him under editing restrictions as per WP:ARBAA2. In a short time that he has been here, he has already been warned by the admins: [67], and I warned him about ARBAA2 at his talk: [68] Since both Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are covered by ARBAA2, this thread needs to be moved to WP:AE and discussed there to determine whether HouseOfArtaxiad should be placed on a restriction. In my opinion, a topic ban needs to be considered, as HouseOfArtaxiad demonstrates battleground mentality and fails to understand the core WP rules. Grandmaster 23:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think a better idea is for an admin to close this--I think the initial complaint has been dealt with, though without blocking or anything like that (and for that, HouseOfArtaxiad should be grateful)--and to start a new thread. This one was a bit contaminated from the beginning since the net wasn't cast very wide and the sanction called for in no proportion to the disruption. There are bigger fish to fry: (allegedly!) a general pattern of POV editing that should be dealt with in the appropriate forum. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed the section header which was 'Distruptive editing' and changed it to 'Concerns about editing by User:HouseOfArtaxiad' in the hope of making it neutral. User:Drmies is hoping to find another admin to close this. One could argue that this could be forwarded to WP:AE since User:Grandmaster left a notice for HouseOfA in late September which pointed him to WP:ARBAA2. That would count as notification for purposes of the Arb case. If someone tries the AE option then they need to make an argument there has been serious misbehavior on articles subject to the case. Someone would have to supply all the missing information which makes this thread hard to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's why I think that the case, not the thread, should be forwarded: I focused on the narrow issue of the use of the book and the behavior associated with it--the uncivil remarks and the claimed consensus for disqualification. In other words, I didn't enter into this with the thought of ArbCom restrictions and how those might or might not be relevant to the case. Thank you Ed, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Drmies I want to point out both those warning were about the same thing and were about a week after I joined Wikipedia. Drmies, you may not be such a bad guy, maybe you saw the disruptive editing title and immediately thought it was as simple as that, but try to take a step back and look at things more open-mindedly. I was the first one to report this, as I showed, but at the time the Admins simply didn't care. But all that matters now is fixing the three articles. Forget about the massacre one, I have an idea to completly rewrite the list, which has grown unreadably long and lost all sense of definition for "massacre". But look at the Nazim and Mehmed articles. All these changes are based off the claims of one author. This author got the death date of Nazim wrong by several years and the "justifiable vengence" theme of both articles is really unencyclopedic, especially because they are basically telling the reader 'the Armenians had to die because of Russians'. How does that make any sense? Both look like a poorly written extremist book, something that is also the only reason Justin McCarthy has an article. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      These 2 rvs by HouseOfArtaxiad: [69] [70] at the time when his behavior is discussed here are clearly not helpful. He removed a reference and asserted as a fact one of the versions of the foundation of the town (and not the generally accepted one), suppressing the other, in contradiction to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and a bunch of other rules. Grandmaster 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The concerns about editing of HouseOfArtaxiad have already been raised at WP:AE: [71] Grandmaster 21:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Abuse response

      I'm not sure if this is where I should post this but I was just checking out Wikipedia:Abuse response and found that there are open cases that go back to 2011. There is a very small group of volunteers that address requests but many of them are either officially or unofficially inactive. I have posted a notice on each of their Talk Pages.

      Should there either a) be a drive to find more volunteers or b) a move to mark these pages inactive? It doesn't look like there has been activity since 2012. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the page should be marked as inactive. It's not like ISPs care unless it's a response from like WMF or the government. Elockid (Talk) 23:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It looked important (at least its title) but I don't know the history of this "division" of administration and how important and active it was. Anyone with long memories fill in the details? Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I'd like to see the Abuse response process MfD'd and marked historical. It was useful for a time, long long ago. But now, it's almost pointless - if it is going to cover all the things it should, the workload would be unmanageable. Unfortunately, I don't have the desire to coordinate an MfD discussion.. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's corporate IPs or educational IPs, they may actually have TOS to enforce, and may actually care. But the typical garden-variety ISP, probably not. --Rschen7754 05:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A couple of times I've actually gotten residential ISPs to actually take care of it. Most of the time I simply got no response from the ISP, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If that is the case, maybe this project should be marked inactive? I'm not sure it warrants deletion, but Wikipedia:Abuse response definitely should be removed as an active link on the Template:Noticeboard links which is posted in so many places and on so many user pages (it's under User Conduct>Abuse>Reporting). Its presence makes it look like a valid alternative to turn to when it is actually inactive. Liz Read! Talk! 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There would have to be a formal full-blown discussion about making it inactive, just like the BS when "we" closed WP:WQA ES&L 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      While that sounds like a project I would really not like to be involved in, it's ridiculous that this effort is listed prominently on the Noticeboard template when it is inactive (there are several other noticeboards that have low activity but not this bad). What would be involved in initiating this discussion, ES&L? At worst, there will be very little response or participation. At best, maybe it would serve to revive this project. Liz Read! Talk! 15:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WQA never got this dismal and obviously completely inactive. Per WP:SILENCE I believe we should just proceed with closing it due to the clear lack of interest. The main project page was already marked as historical, I just marked the nom page as well and closed all discussions there. When I have a moment I will endeavor to remove other pointers to it so nobody wastes their time submitting more reports that will never be dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Speedy delete as non -controversial housekeeping. The project is dead, what does it need all these old, unactioned reports for?
      2. Mass MFD nomination. Helps us be sure what the consensus is as to the fate of these pages, but is it really needed?
      3. Ignore them. This is obviously the simplest solution but should we consider the harm done by keeping record of abuse that may have stopped years ago and has never been properly investigated?

      I suppose it is obvious I think number 1 is a good option, but before deleting that many pages unilaterally I'd like to just get some quick thoughts on these options. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • That's an awkward one. I feel that it may not quite qualify as being "non-controversial", but then, do we really want to overload the MfD process, or just leave things sat around unactioned? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Topic Ban (Martial arts) for Kontoreg

      I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Kontoreg on martial arts articles. The user has consistently disrupted martial arts related pages with pointy edits that are beyond reason (undue weight) and reflect a distinctly minority view. The edits invariably disrupt both the content and prose of the articles and have led to a high level of frustration with pretty much any editor he interacts with. Enthusiasm is not a bad thing but constant edit warring is - even minor corrections to English are reverted (one would think without thought). Please see User talk:Kontoreg for more recent comments. Other pages that reflect good examples of the disruptive behavior are Kendo, Abe ryu and Japanese martial arts although I would say every page he touches is affected. This has been going on for a long time and is a testament to the patience of other editors. The effort required to maintain quality of articles is excessive.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Agree Although I defended Kontoreg's behavior two years ago [72], I find that he has not changed his disruptive editing habits. jmcw (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree I particularly find disruptive Kontoreg's habit of fighting every edit until an overwhelming consensus is against him, then waiting a few months and starting over again. I think that almost none of his edits improve the content, most of them leave wikipedia with a seriously distorted view of things. Francis Bond (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe not yet. I reviewed dozens of edits today and Kontoreg seems to have added many correct and useful contributions to many Japanese martial arts articles. On the other hand I can see a clear attitude problem and some edit warring. For example, it does not help Wikipedia if we allow endless reverts and other combatative edits about unimportant topics like Draeger's jutsu/do division (a typology that he invented and overemphasized) versus contemporary Japanese senior exponent's choice of words when deciding if we label something iaido, iaijutsu or battōjutsu. Perhaps we are dealing with a young and naive user who is obsessed enough about the topic to be a koryū cop (neologism for classical jap. martial arts fan who is mostly reading books and endlessly debating about minute details of traditions he has never practiced or experienced in first place). Since users edits are almost exclusively to martial arts articles, a topic ban would in practice equal a full ban from Wikipedia. I suggest trying WP:DRN first. jni (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought this way two years ago. How many more years would you suggest? jmcw (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The disruptive/destructive edits outweigh the constructive edits, in both number and impact and either way they do not excuse his/her behaviour, in the least. Kontoreg is not an ignorant newbie, that we shouldn't WP:BITE. Kontoreg has been warned repeatedly, and even been reported at least once. None of this has helped that much, and any effect has been purely temporary, as stated above. As to a DRN... When Kontoreg has violated the guidelines, policies and/or principles of wikipedia, it has been pointed out to him/her that he/she is in violation, of which rule and, to some extent, the purpose of those rules. Kontoreg has never shown any sign of bothering to learn about those rules, nor of later following them, but has repeatedly broken them. Kontoreg is not ignorant. Kontoreg is partially wilfully ignorant, and partially informed, but without any care for the rules or other people. A DRN would be pointless. The purpose of a DRN is to establish consensus. I fail to see the point of one, for a user who doesn't respect consensus, and besides: DRNs are for for one topic on one article, not the general behaviour of a user. It doesn't apply.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I never suggested DRN was about general behavior of a user. DR could be initiated about his recent edits to iaido. I'm hesitant to support a ban as it seems that the lesser dispute resolution mechanisms have actually never been attempted with this user (save talk page complaints). jni (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If we were to do as you suggest, it would involve three or four DRNs, at least, for the current, ongoing, issues. Also, I disagree for the aforementioned reasons. I've been through a DRN (which I asked for ...and it worked quite well). I know what it's for and I know how it works. A DRN has no purpose other than to properly discuss all the issues and thus being able to properly establish consensus. While getting things talked through and establishing consensus is generally a turbulent affair with Kontoreg (generally involving some edit warring during the process), it has generally always been possible to establish consensus (i.e. fulfilling the one and only purpose, that a DRN has). Thus a DRN would be pointless. This falls outside the scope or purpose of a DRN. Furthermore, a DRN does not stop a user from being able to continue making disturbing edits while it is ongoing (you aren't supposed to, but that's never stopped Kontoreg), nor does it stop a user from continuing to make such edits after consensus has been reached (again: You're never supposed to, but...).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree I would like to mention his/her recent edits on Iaido (most of which I haven't yet had the time/energy to go through and correct). I would strongly disagree that Kontoreg fights until overwhelming consensus, to then wait. I know of at least one case, where Kontoreg continued after a proper and overwhelming consensus had been established.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Iaido is a good example - a huge amount of efforts pushing a point of view (Iaido is not a true martial art but a sport -reflections of his Kendo edits) with other editors being overwhelmed and giving up. I won't support a ban just for poor English but good luck trying to correct his mangling of the language.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly, the bad "English" is the least of the problems with Kontoreg's edits (on iaido and elsewhere). Nowhere (in this section, at least) has it been suggested that Kontoreg be banned for his/her poor grasp of English.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Far from it - I was just trying to highlight the difficulty in dealing with him.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It seems I am going towards my own ban - I can only respond to these destructive edits by simple revision. It might be 3X by now. Maybe someone should check who hit 3 first on Japanese martial arts and ban accordingly.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't just reply to multiple reverts, with multiple reverts of your own. You need to try to discuss (please read WP:BRD). If that doesn't work, then you need to resort to other means, such as DRNs, mediation or some other method ...but just responding with a revert, multiple times, is not proper wikipedia behaviour. Usually, you shouldn't revert more than once, before pursuing other means instead. I note that you haven't really written anything, on the talk page. Kontoreg has, even if none of it has been sensible. Also WP:3RR is not exactly the point at which users get banned. You can get banned before that, but when you reach that limit (which, BTW, neither of you have, as it is 3 reverts within a 24 hour period), you are almost certain to be banned. You should never even come close to 3RR. Also, "the one to reach 3 first (that'd be you, BTW) gets banned, and the other one gets let off", doesn't really sound like the kind of logic that would work here. It's not really terribly sensible. I wouldn't argue for you to be banned, but you seriously need to learn about how disputes are supposed to be resolved, here on Wikipedia. Please read up on the relevant guidelines and policies. I made a few errors in this area myself, in the beginning (though I doubt I ever let it go quite that far), but you are far from a newbie. You should really know better.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      With respect to Japanese martial arts, Kontoreg seems to have two major points, that s/he is trying to push. First point is that one of the sources is not relevant (since the author is not a martial artist, but a philosopher, thus them translating "martial art" as "budo" is incorrect) and second point, that according to her/him "budo" does not translate as "martial arts".
      There are, of course, a bunch of other edits hidden within his edit, that make the flow of the article worse, and harder to read, or adding irrelevant information.
      I've replied to his comment regarding "budo" on the talk page, giving exact quote out of a major Japanese-English dictionary (and then supported it with a quote from another major Japanese-English dictionary), that literally translates "budo" as "martial arts". The onus is now on her/him to provide credible sources that would back an argument, that "budo" does not stand for "martial arts" either when translated directly, or for "Japanese martial arts" in common English usage.
      Both of his/her arguments can be easily deflected by adding Kenkyusha to the list of credible sources, so I've revered the page back to the previous version (thus preserving former readability), and added Kenkyusha as a reference for the term "budo".
      Not having read the book by the other author, that Kontoreg finds offensive, I've left that reference in place in good faith. Urokugaeshi (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. Not having been here for long, I am not sure how much my vote carries, but what little I've seen of Kontoreg leads me to believe that benefits of his contributions do not outweigh the disruption. I, for example, am not sure what to do with ~80 edits of Iaido, that he created, turning the article into a total mess, and biasing the article towards his point of view. Urokugaeshi (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Block appeal from L'Origine du monde

      It seems there is consensus to make the usual WP:OFFER but nothing more than that. I'll let L'OdM know. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      At the end of September this user was blocked by Beeblebrox and subsequently appealed. The appeal was turned down after a previous AN discussion. The editor has made an unblock appeal on their talk page and requested that it be brought here. Their unblock request follows below. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I am sorry that I went crazy. In the 5 years I have been editing wikipedia my only previous block was 1day for violating 1rr in Arab-Israeli - the 3 weeks+ of mistaken indefinite block really pushed my powers of endurance, and I over reacted to those who questioned my innocence and mistakenly thought I had been identified as a vandal by Checkuser. Having taken a break, I accept the mistake, apologise for my over reactions and bad behaviour. I can see that my situation was unusual, and think that I can improve the unblock template and related text so the directions are clearer. I would like to point to Right to Exist, to which I made the majority of edits, as an example of my abilities to contribute in controversial areas, and improve this great work. I believe I have insight into my overreaction to unusual circumstances, and a greater understanding of the administrative and anti-vandalism procedures. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥
      • Not yet WP:OFFER ... plus, they'd need to significantly expands the number of people they're directly apologizing to on their talkpage ... it's much longer than that. See you in March ES&L 13:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not yet - Didn't we just go through this? And looking at LOdM's User-space edits, I'm not getting the impression that any of the sticks are really dropped, but only the verbiage used is being toned down. I don't have any confidence that LOdM won't return to the same problematic behaviors. Zad68 13:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not yet Per ES&L and Zad, lets wait till the standard offer applies before unblocking. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not yet I have occasionally viewed User talk:L'Origine du monde since the mess erupted and it appears the user is doing the minimum required to allow them to resume their NOTCENSORED campaign—a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, and a time sink for those who have to deal with the nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per WP:ROPE. I don't believe in making people beg to return, only promise not to resume the behavior that got them blocked.--v/r - TP 01:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not yet . Completely new to this AN issue, I have just reviewed all the background, and I think the standard offer should run its course. There are many things that L'Origine du monde does not, and still does not appear to understand about Wikipedia, and the block would enable them to follow Wikipedia stuff and get up to speed. That's why I don't concur with TParis's suggestion of WP:ROPE; we have turned many inexperienced editors into good and collegial contributors in the past, and I would not like to see Rope being a possible path towards another indef, or even a ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as blocking admin. I firmly believe this user was acting in a deliberately provocative fashion and reject their claim that there was just some sort of temporary "freak out." As the primary author of ROPE I obviously do support it's use in many cases, but I don't think this is one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Given the opposition of the blocking admin, I cannot in good conscience support this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks like this is going to snowball but my main concern is that L'Origine had posted an unblock request on 11/2 and hadn't had any response. When this discussion closes and gets archived, could an Admin inform him/her and also state conditions under which she/he could reapply to be unblocked in the future? Many thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 17:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, they already know about WP:OFFER; they're hoping we all forgot. You're right, however, block requests are one of my usual admin tasks ... but I'm on admin-holiday for a couple of more months. I see a couple of long-overdue request reviews on some of the pages on my watchlist ES&L 18:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That was my main concern, ES&L, that they weren't left in limbo, without an answer either way. Surely other Admins are on patrol, right? Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Many of my previous tasks have gone to fallow since August :-) We all have our specialties/tasks. Unblock handling is not a glamour role, nor does it make you many friends ES&L 02:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Tell me about it. I managed to piss off an otherwise perfectly friendly panda the other day. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      A matter of trust

      NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
      NE Ent 00:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Please save me the feel good messages, I'm not looking for those. Recently I've been discussing my near-paid editing experience on User_talk:Jimbo Wales. Some editors have expressed that I've violated the community's trust. There is no consensus on that with respect to the COI policy. However, two things concern me. The first is that I am currently the leading candidate for the Arbcom Election Committee for 2013 in terms of the numbers supporting me. I am not sure if those who supported me there are aware of my recent announcement, although I've disclosed it previously several times. So, would it be canvassing for me to ask each of them to reevaluate their support based on information that is not really new, but much more visible now? I feel that the election committee is an important role of trust and I wouldn't want my participation in it to affect it's legitimacy in the future if these issues are not hashed out now.

      Also, on a closely-related issue, the question of the appropriateness of an administrator who has accepted money to edit has come up. I'm aware that reconfirmation RFAs are not seen positively around here. However, would the community find it appropriate or even necessary for me to go through a new RFA? If there is a consensus on the subject, I'm willing to request desysop at WP:BN and go through the normal process. Or if consensus is entirely against me having the bit, I'll just resign it and leave it at that. I'm not attached to the tool, it doesn't affect my pride any, and as far as I am concerned it really belongs to the community and not me anyway.--v/r - TP 01:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      For those of us who haven't been following Jimbo's talk page, would you mind providing a brief recap of your experience as a paid (or near-paid) editor? MastCell Talk 01:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I was approached by someone who I had worked with on an unrelated project. He said he has great professional respect for a colleague of his and believes that person is important enough to be covered by Wikipedia. I told him I'd like 3 days to review it myself. I found ample sources to meet WP:GNG but I also found other notability criteria that this person met including being a Fellow of the Royal Society. I agreed to write the article, I released my copyright of the work to them, and they published the article on Wikipedia. I later submitted the article for a DYK, disclosed my COI, and the article was reviewed for neutrality. In the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, another editor has been able to demonstrate that sources that were critical of the subject existed and I had not included them. I maintain that I was not aware of them, but I'm not really sure it matters.--v/r - TP 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bah. No need for drama, TP. Go away from Jimbo's page and get back to work :-) ES&L 01:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed wholeheartedly. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think a reconfirmation RFA is a good idea in this case. As far as I know, you're the first admin to disclose that you (sometimes) edit for pay. Given the possible precedent and PR concerns about admins accepting money for edits, I think this is a situation where the temperature of the community needs to be taken. My personal feeling is that I'm uncomfortable with an admin editing for pay because it opens the door to adminning for pay, but I suspect individual editors' opinions will vary widely on the topic and it's best to see what the consensus is about whether people are comfortable with you playing both roles.

        As far as election coordinator, I think that similarly, the people running arbcom elections need to be viewed as ideologically as pure as possible, and paid editing again may put a pall on that. You could try notifying all previous !voters, but frankly I think it would be easier and more...seemly?...to just withdraw if you think your candidacy is that potentially problematic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      From WP:COI: "Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic." (The emphasis is mine.) However, you should disclose on the article's talk page or via edit summary whenever you have a conflict of interest in the interests of transparency. You should understand, as any other paid/COI editor should, that the content, once on Wikipedia, is outside your control. In other words, you may find that the content you were paid to write was severely trimmed back or deleted at AFD, leading to you not getting paid. You'll have to deal with that with your employer—Wikipedia's editors largely won't care that you lost your job or reputation for good work. Don't spam (duh), don't sock (duh), and don't accept payments to advocate a position. Those are about all the issues that I noticed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @TParis: I don't go on Jimbo's talk page, and you don't explicitly mention it here: did you actually accept pay (monetary or otherwise) for writing the article? The way you talk about it, I read it as just a sort of favor for a colleague, without compensation. As an outsider to this issue, I think people are making a lot of unnecessary stink about this comparing it to Wiki-PR and such, even if you were paid. From what I've seen of your work here, I personally think that your standing as an administrator shouldn't be compromised at all (I have no opinion on Arbcom as I don't really know how that body works). Ansh666 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I did. The "sort of paid to edit" part comes to play because I didn't actually make the edit that introduced the material. I released the copyright to the payer and allowed them to post it. Not out of an attempt to deceive it's source. I declared within the week here that I had a COI long before this matter became controversial. But it was for their friend and they wanted to post it.--v/r - TP 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like you weren't even the Wikipedia editor for the article itself, and as an editor only did the DYK submittal. But either way, the piece of gold in that conflicting patchwork wp:coi guideline is the bolded definition at the top: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Did you let that happen at any time? If so, you blew it big time. If not, then (including in light of everything else above) IMHO you are fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said on Jimbo's page, my integrity isn't for sale. I took 3 days to review the material to make sure it was beneficial to Wikipedia first before even accepting the job.--v/r - TP 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Integrity" in this instance ("the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness"), would entail announcing any conflict of interest on the talk page on your first edit. If you did that, then there's nothing to discuss here. If you didn't do that, then the community has a right to ask why not. As you are already aware, issues with your application of NPOV in the area of COI editing have been raised by other editors on Jimbo's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • My first edit was at 01:44 10 Sept and I made the COI declaration at 02:03 10 Sept. I did not make it on the talk page because I assumed making it in the DYK request was sufficient (my actual-non-paid-editing was to get the article to DYK quality, afterall, so I felt it important to disclose the COI to the reviewer).--v/r - TP 02:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Looks good to me. Then I guess the only argument on Jimbo's page is about your interpretation of NPOV? Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think there is anything I can say about that. I screwed up. But it wasn't on purpose. Only thing I can say is that I've been critical of articles I have a COI with, such as Tops In Blue before (I had a friend in the ensemble). But I'm not sure if that's even a worthy argument, I wasn't paid to write that article.--v/r - TP 03:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think TP is too worried about his personal situation, and is unintentionally causing a lot of drama by worrying too much, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_need_to_be_redacted. The general question of paid editing by admins, which I opened on Jimbo's talk page, is quite serious. Wiki-PR is still boasting that it employs admins to edit articles here, and I'm simply appalled by that idea. Who ever would have thought that *admins* would consider that it's ok for them to edit for pay? (As Fluffernutter notes, TP seems to be the first to declare this). After I opened the discussion TP jumps in with his disclosure and asks why I can't AGF in his case. Not the best way to do it IMHO. I don't see any reason to pursue TP's case, if he feels uncomfortable, he may pursue it via RfA. The general question should be pursued however. I'd suggest a survey of admins here, "Do they think that admins should be allowed to edit for pay?" but first I think the recent brouhahas should be allowed to calm down. And admins should consider what each answer would mean for Wikipedia - it's likely to be a big change in either case. Wikilawyering about a case we haven't come close to seeing before isn't a good idea. To me the main issue would be regulatory capture. Let's leave this for now and let things calm down, Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Smallbones has a stronger disagreement than I do with the concept of paid editing in general, but in this specific situation I agree with his assessment. Paid editing is just another kind of COI, and when you (1) do your best to be neutral despite the COI, and (2) make clear that you've got the COI in the first place, there's no real problem unless you're inept at being neutral. TP seems to have handled the edits in question in an ideal fashion, so I too will suggest that he stop beating himself up and continue being a useful administrator. We have few enough admins; we don't need to lose another one! Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see this as a matter of concern. You've been explicit with your involvement/possible biases, and, while I don't quite align with paid editing in general, I don't feel that this is against policy. If the community seeks to redefine consensus on paid editing, that can be done with an RFC - for now, there's nothing wrong here. If anything, you deserve praise for being honest. m.o.p 08:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with m.o.p. My judgment of this paid editing situation is not that is it "okay" or "evil" but that it is in flux. I think Wikipedia is, at most, halfway through a conversation about the subject and no serious changes should be made while there is such a wide range of opinions being aired about it. The community is still sorting everything through, posting RfCs and hashing things out on Wales' Talk Page. There haven't been any guidelines settled on yet which require TP to do anything other that disclose your COI which you had. I don't think you should make any decisions based on talk page conversations, just continue to be transparent. Maybe by early 2014, some standards might be settled upon but, like I said, the situation is still being debated and it would be a mistake to take any one position as authoritative (unless it is already part of WP policy). Liz Read! Talk! 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand this correctly, I'd say you didn't handle this ideally (should have announced the COI immediately and ideally would have found the negative material). I don't think any of those things are killer, but certainly would be problematic if they happened again. I'd much prefer our admins not get paid for things related to Wikipedia at all. But you certainly still have my trust and my endorsement of you for the election stuff still stands. Just handle it better next time (and ideally I'd prefer there not be a next time). Hobit (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Kudos to TParis for raising the question here. Yes, a bit of drama, but better a little drama now, than a lot more later. I don't think it affects the ability to be a member of the Election committee. I could imagine it being a relevant issue if he were to run for Arbcom. I don't think a reconfirmation RfS for this issue is warranted (qualified, because I'd like to see everyone go through one eventfully.) We still have some sorting out to do on how we should handle paid article editing, but it is a highly contentious issue, and it is fair to ask the questions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that TParis highlighted an important systemic issue, which is that editors can make some good money editing Wikipedia while staying within the rules. The fact that he is an administrator in good standing is illustrative of the fact. I.e., he has the trust of the community, he knows the rules backwards and forwards, and feels genuine indignation that his judgment is, notwithstanding, called into question when he accepted pay. But the problem is not TP but the system that allows editors to work for pay as long as their "motives are pure." The very wording of the COI rules cited above ("when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest") shows how much trouble we're in. It makes COI an entirely subjective issue totally existing within the mind of an editor, rather than an objective fact caused by payment or other factors. I like that TP has come forward and bared his soul like this, even though his presenting himself as a test case was done for the purpose of challenging the move to curb paid editing rather than to help it along. I disagree that the disclosure that he refers to above is adequate, as it was not made on the talk page of the subject article and there is no such disclosure to this day. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As disgusted as I am to be defending TParis, the fact is that he's done nothing wrong in this case. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Joe, I appreciate your objectivity.--v/r - TP 17:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see a reason not to believe TP when he states that he was not aware of the less complimentary sources. His broader body of work speaks for itself as to how he approaches the project and while a reconfirmation for adminship might be a good idea, just to put everybody at ease, I see no reason to withdraw from the arbcom election. Against the current (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not surprisingly, I see nothing but honesty and openness in TP's behavior. I'm personally against paid editing by anyone and even more so by adminstrators, but my personal preferences don't trump policy. No reason to withdraw from the Committee, request a "revote", or run another RfA. Someone uninvolved should be able to close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • TP, the only people who would see what you did as importantly problematic are people who either aren't seeing the end-goal (good articles for a good encyclopedia), or aren't really thinking it through. Being upfront about it on Jimbo's page was laudable and helpful, even if perhaps it didn't help some of the readers there to see the issue more clearly. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User Takaisi, third notice (old incident)

      Apologies for posting this again, but it was archived so quickly that User:Timtrent (aka FiddleFaddle) apparently did not notice that he was replying to an archived message.

      User Takaisi, second incident notice
      User:Takaisi was reported for article ownership issues bordering on edit warring last month; see archives. At that time there was no reply, but the user stopped editing shortly after User:DAJF reported the issues.
      Over the past couple of days Takaisi has again been editing. Most of these edits are well-intended and constructive. On the other hand, the user has a tendency to revert articles to his/her preferred version, particularly where stubs have been merged.
      The editor also removes maintenance tags (Soka Women's College 3 November) and rarely participates in Talk page discussions. As DAJF noted in October, this may be at least partially a language issue. I have translated Takaisi's comments from Japanese to English on a couple of occasions in the past (here, here, and here), and have translated English comments to Japanese on User talk:Takaisi.
      I'm not sure what sort of intervention might be appropriate, but I've done just about all I can and the user is not engaging with me. Perhaps others can be more successful. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The only way I know of getting such an editor's attention is to fire a large warning shot across his bows. I understand and share Cnilep's frustrations. Inspection of User talk:Takaisi shows that this editor ploughs his own furrow whatever he is asked to do differently. It may be WP:COMPETENCE or it may be language, or it may be bloody mindedness, but it is time for it to stop. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The earlier messages are at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Edit-warring and ownership issues by User:Takaisi and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User Takaisi, second incident notice. There are additional, related comments at User talk:Cnilep#Nara Medical University College of Nursing reverts and User talk:Timtrent#User Takaisi. Cnilep (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Takaisi has no visible comments on any talk page in the English language. On his own talk page people have left him messages to which he doesn't respond. (By mistake, he has occasionally posted a comment in article text, for example at Takaoka National College). This is now the third post at ANI about him, so a wait-and-see approach wouldn't be reasonable. WP:COMPETENCE includes communication. In my opinion the only options are either (a) an indef block until the user agrees to join in talk page discussions in English, or (b) a final warning that makes the same point. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      On the basis that many edits are wholly constructive, I suggest (b) followed by (a) at whatever distance apart they are required. We need to get his attention, not to punish him. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Copy deleted article to my userspace?

      I'm currently working on improving the Everything2 article. Several years ago, an article on the Everything Engine (which I recreated as a redict) was deleted on notability grounds. Although I haven't seen it yet, I think some of the content of this old page might be appropriate for the Everything2#Software subsection on the Everything2 article. Can someone go back to the deleted text and copy it to my userspace so I look through this and see what is appropriate? Thank you, thank you! —mako๛ 09:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:REFUND is the appropriate noticeboard ES&L 10:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is true, but what the hell, I went ahead and just restored it in-place. The page is still a redirect but you can pull the content from the history. be sure to attribute it in your edit summary iand/or on the target article's talk page using {{merged-from}} if you re-use any of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Nominations for the 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

      Nominations for the 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday, 10 November at 00:01 (UTC) until Tuesday, 19 November at 23:59 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. 64.40.54.211 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Question: Is this a named editor accidentally editing while logged out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=581015852"