Jump to content

User talk:Bilby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gregorybarry (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 27 February 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User
User 		Talk
Talk 		Gallery
Gallery 		Contributions
Contribs 		Email
Email

Template:Archive box collapsible

Controversial Reddit communities

Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JarrahTree 13:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we have an Adelaide wikipedia meeting (in Rundle St) for the Friday night that JarrahTree is in town. If you object, please ping me. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ping: User:JarrahTree; User:ScottDavis; User:Bilby
By-the-way: I tried to update the Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide, but I did something wrong. I'll sort it out tomorrow. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I will be in the city that afternoon anyway. I should be finished a bit after 7pm. My wife may finish at the same time or be busy until later. Either way, she could join us when she is finished too. --Scott Davis Talk 14:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be there as well. - Bilby (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Comments at Gamergate Talk

Good morning! I certainly understand why you removed the recent comments on the talk page, and trust me, I am sympathetic. I don't think doing so was in any sense "wrong," but I'd like to suggest that we're better off leaving comments like that, distasteful though it may seem. I think this for a couple of reasons; one is simply that in my experience, the best way to expose bad arguments is to actually have them out in the open where people can engage with them. Secondly, I think by leaving such commentary up, there's a chance (however slight), that some of our interlocutors will stay around a bit and make contributions of value, rather than encouraging more drive-by allegations of bias when people don't see their views represented. Just thought I would drop that note! If you continue removals, I will be in no way aggrieved. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted in the press

You might want to know that comments you made on Jimbo's talkpage were quoted in The Times of Israel. More info is at User talk:Smallbones. - Bri (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen College Protests

Bibly, 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

Does that look like a legitimate protest to you? Is that not threatening behavior? There's your sources! Stop undoing my edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.108.179 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is not what you perceive it to be, but what the sources report it as being. This has been described as a protest, the Day of Absence as voluntary, and that the protested demanded, but not that they threatened. Irrespective of how you feel about it, we don;t rely on our own opinions. - Bilby (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so blocking doors and refusing to allow faculty to leave and even openly saying so in the video, which is the legal definition of kidnapping and is a crime, is not threatening? How about threatening violence (openly) if the President didn't give in to their demands? I'm sorry, but you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.108.179 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't rely on our interpretations, only what is in the sources. - Bilby (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you say that, since the video shows it all, plain as day. Not biased news articles, not hear-say... actual video in its entirety. But whatever, I have pretty much determined at this point that you are yet another person who would rather censor the truth to protect political bias. Good thing the article was locked at this point so you can't change any more history. --73.157.108.179 (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this text was not close to a copyright violation. You removed it claiming it was then replaced it with rephrased text excluding the Manweller quote, which itself could not have been a copyright violation. If you had another reason for removing it you never gave it. It is not constructive to revert multiple editors, consistently (you've reached 3RR) without clear explanation or consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The text was very similar to the source, and given that prior version that was a violation, it makes it appear to be overly close and derivative. There was no need for the quote. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source:

A Washington State lawmaker wants to pull funding from Evergreen State College and make it a private institution.

The removed "copyright violation" text:

Following the protests, Washington State Legislative Representitive Matt Manweller R-Ellensburg, introduced legislation to revoke funding for Evergreen State College and make it a private institution.

Your replacement text:

In response to the protests, Republican Matt Manweller introduced a bill to remove funding from the college.

I see no way to convey the same information (remove funding and make private) with text substantially different than the removed text. Your solution was to remove the "private institution" comment. This removes information, it does not address copyright. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where we start from a copyrighted text, and then visibly reorganise parts of it, we create the appearance of a derivative work, which is still a potential copyright violation. Given that it is always easy to fully reword text, this is typically the best choice.
In this case, my wording states who created the bill and that the goal is to remove funding. I'm happy to look for alternative wording, but it is safer to keep it just a step further removed from the original. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As did the wording I restored. If you have serious concerns I believe the place to address them would be Wikipedia:Copyright problems James J. Lambden (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point regarding derivative wording. I might be being a bit overly cautious, but it isn't a big deal to change the wording a bit more to avoid any concerns. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryann Keller

Hi Bilby, Can you help address the issues raised by the warning tag in the article "Maryann Keller" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryann_Keller . Thanks a lot for your time and help. Cutie girly (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One week?

Greetings. A few minutes ago I blocked the vandal that we have both been cleaning up after: based on the rather extreme nature of their edits, and the fact that they were clearly biding their time until launching this assault, I indeffed them as WP:NOTHERE. You then modified this to a one week block. Could you please explain? Vanamonde (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: I see you self-reverted. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we had a block conflict. I didn't even know we could do that. :) I blocked for a week as an emergency measure so I could fully look into their other edits before deciding on indef, but because we both did it at almost the same time, my block was a bit later and overrode yours. I went back to check their talk page and saw the double message so I worked out what had happened, and changed it back to the indef block. - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, interesting, I didn't know that could happen either, though I did have a protect conflict once. Multiple pages they edited were on my watchlist, and so I saw multiple edits at once: which convinced me to indef. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit more limited, as I'm working off an iPad at a meet up. Thus I went for a quick response to stop damage until I could look into the history. I'm glad you were watching them and handled it so quick. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Citation Given

Hi,

You recently made an edit, re Not in Citation Given (Fv tag). I tried reading what it means & from my understanding it means that the citation given doesn't really back what's said in the sentence?

Case in Point Zunera has also covered and participated in New York Fashion Week.[1]

Now that I read it, I know the sentence really doesn't seem to sit well with the contents of the citation. The subject was covering the NYFW but not AT NYFW. I thought adding this information will further add the to fashion blogger prowess and its an ABC News link so it will add to the notability hence its a reliable source.

What do you suggest we remove the sentence & citation or just leave it as is? I mean please advice what should I do in light of the tag you added?Thecapital15 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://wjla.com/news/entertainment/preparing-for-new-york-fashion-week-22909

@Bilby: Hey can you kindly respond to my query above? Thecapital15 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block question

I just saw a block that confused me. You blocked User:Ocrot on June 12, 2017 for block evasion as a sock of User:Nmwalsh, who had been blocked on November 29, 2016 for three months. But User:Ocrot wasn't created until May 16, 2017, long after those three months were over. What gives? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking because an article User:Ocrot created is currently being discussed at AfD. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought we'd indeffed Nmwalsh. It isn't block evasion, then, but sockpuppetry. Nmwalsh is a paid editor who was blocked for using socks to evade detection, and it seems still uses them for the same reason. - Bilby (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Erika Lemay

Hi Bilby, why you tagged Erica Lemay article with COI template? I don´t know her, I only saw her in Cirque du Soleil and thought that an international artist like her could have her page on Wikipedia .. even thought to translate it into Spanish. Do you think the article should be more neutral? --Ane wiki (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unlikely. Based on your recent editing, there seems to be a valid concern that this is a paid article. - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my "recent editing"? can you be more specific? Anyway, Erika Lemay is an international artist, thousands of people have seen her as a guest at Cirque du Soleil, the article could have been done by anyone with the information that is online.--Ane wiki (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, it could have been. But in this case it seems unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bilby, would you care to present evidence for your accusation of paid editing by Ane wiki, preferably in the form of diffs? Otherwise this is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Note that ARBCOM has said An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. Editors are however reminded that Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser. Thus it is not enough for you to make and repeat such accusations, nor to place a COI tag on an article, without some evidence. That Ane wiki has done paid editing in the past, and has declared it, does not demonstrate that all future edits by this editor are paid. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have strong evidence. But it can wait. - Bilby (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that WP:ADMINACCT says that Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I suggest that it is needed here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do appear to have replied to you promptly. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think that came off as a bit short. My apologies. The reason I don't want to pursue this at the moment is that it seems that there is a bigger problem than I initially pictured. I was hoping that simply posting the tag would be enough to quietly prompt the editor, rather than making something bigger of it, but that doesn't seem to have worked. I can post evidence, but doing so risks creating problems for the editor. Thus I was hoping something simpler would solve the problem. It never seems to work, but I'm hoping to find a way of convincing editors to follow the ToU without just ending up with an indef.
However, since looking at this originally, there seems to be a more expensive problem than I expected, so I'm going to have to make sure I have all my ducks in a row. Thus I'd rather step back from this for now while I look into it further. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did respond promptly, It was the ...justify them when needed. that I was asking for. However, i will respect your desire to wait until your evidence is properly in order. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tag from the article for the time being. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In removing the tag, do you feel that the article is a neutral depiction of the subject? If so, I'm happy to see the tag removed. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A COI tag is not the same thing as an NPOV tag. If the writing is non-neutral (as by a fan), the latter is proper. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tag reads "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." It doesn't say that the user is a paid editor, but that their are concerns, and that those concerns may have resulted in problems with the neutrality of the article. The easiest fix is to confirm that the article is neutral, and then the potential COI is not an issue.. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Virto Commerce

Hi Bilby, I have added the tag "connected contributor" on Virto Commerce talk page, I think this should resolve the "conflict of interest". Also, the article contains active and reliable references to the content present which point to the websites other than the website of virtocommerce, are you sure it needs cleanup? Thanks, Pranav011 03:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav011 (talk • contribs) [reply]

AUTHENTIC INFORMATION FOR JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE

Hi, Bilby, I'm Mark member of Jesus Miracle Crusade, would like to inform you that, as a member of this church, I want to improve our Church information here in Wikipedia, kindly help me if how can i edit and put only an authentic information about our church? based on our official websites.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcim1975 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Margieth (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babes (band)

Hey, just wondering what the COI tag was put onto this article for. I removed it for now, I couldn't find anything that suggest conflict of interest editing. We can continue discussing this on the article's talk page. —Formal Dude (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI noticeboard

I'm curious. Why did you remove my post? It's not WP:OUTING, and no other reason occurs to me. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the same thing. I have a couple of diffs to post, pointing to LogAntiLog but I'm waiting to see if I'm missing something important. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been overzealous. However, doing a whois to identify someone's name, and then to link that to a COI discussion, is a lot more than simply linking to a job ad. Similarly, linking to name to an account that stopped editing years before the change in the harassment policy seems like overstepping. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say that's overzealous. Whois is a step too far, when the company is named in the title of the section, and the domain name is in the first paragraph of text, in the archive.is link? Hardly. I've replaced my post. I'll leave it up to Bri to decide about his. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, thinking about it - doing a whois to identify a user and connect that name to an account is more than what we permit. You are allowed to link to a job post, even though that person may be connected. But doing this sort of research to identify a person's real name is not what we should be doing. Please do not add it back again. If there is consensus that this is ok, I'm ok with it going back. But without it, this looks like far more than we permit. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question!

Is it okay to be a paid editor? Because I thought it was, but the messages on my talk page make it seem likes it's a bad thing. If so, do I disclose that on my userpage or on specific pages? I've been paid for a few of the articles I've written, but most of the stuff I do on here is voluntary. I also write every article myself and do all my own research (what I mean is nobody is sending me pages that I'm just supposed to publish). I don't work for a PR rep or any businesses or anything; I'm just a college student interested in writing (including biographical writing and investigative journalism, hence my interest in Wikipedia) and SEO trying to get some side jobs for tuition if that makes a difference about disclosure! I definitely don't want to break any Wiki rules! Rtt11talk 20:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is not encouraged, but it is permitted. The specific disclosure requirements are a bit unclear, but your options are at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. The short version is that you need to list articles you have been paid to edit on your user page, along with who the client was, and to also mention that on the talk pages of the articles in question. And thanks for asking - it is much better if Wikipedia has people willing to meet these requirements! - Bilby (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien Gavillet

Hello Bilby,

I'd like to make a request for undeletion of this page. I will be maintaining the page in the next few months. 

Rgbboy (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was that about?

Should I ask about my User page or just write it off as one of those "oops" moments we all have? :-) Kerry (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was an oops moment. I was checking things from my iPad and mistakenly hit rollback. It had a pop-up message asking if I was sure, so I hit cancel, only apparently cancel means "yes" for reasons that escape me. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the blue

The Original Barnstar
I've bumped into your name twice today, in different contexts and written several years apart and you strike me as an individual of great integrity as a Wikipedian. So here is a barnstar from the blue, because we don't give them to one another often enough anymore. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please could you give a view at User:Dweller/Featured_Articles_that_haven't_been_on_Main_Page#2005? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the comment at DRV. I confused the relative log dates, because I referenced the A7 one in another discussion earlier this week. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD page

Friendly reminder you are close to edit warring at CSD. IF (and it is a big IF) the edit is a change to policy or practice, it is a good change. I believe it accurately reflects consensus amd actual practice. If you wamt to oppose it, start a discussion and make your case. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware I'm on three reverts. That said, there has been no discussion of this change - some people have looked at it over the DRV as part of the issue (although not much specifically about this), but there has been no separate discussion, and no attempt to bring it to the community. This seems like a fairly significant change. Accordingly, it seems that the right move would be to take it to the community for discussion. If it is simple, then the community decision will be reached quickly. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: 3RR is only the bright line of Edit Warring. Your repeated reversion in the face of the original discussion and over 3 independent editors suggests you are Edit Warring. Hasteur (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was certainly edit warring. But there was no crossing the bright line. Significant changes to policy should warrant at least some community discussion, don't you think? - Bilby (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering through edit warring reflects badly on us as the admin corps. That's why people complain about us so much and tar us all with same brush. Start an RfC by all means if it makes you more comfortable but I'm fairly confident that most of the community abhors sockpuppetry and paid editing in all its forms, so probably an RfC would simply be a time sink. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consulting with the community when making significant changes to existing policies may be a time sink, but it is a time sink that we need to have. Making policy changes by fiat and not opening up discussion with the community also reflects badly on "admin corps", and is a bigger problem. - Bilby (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big things

Hi Bilby,

Just came across this and thought you might be interested: Australia’s ‘big’ problem – what to do with our ageing super-sized statues?.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: September 2017

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 8 | September 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue

Featured Topic "Wikipedia – Here and Now": 40 students in the Summer School "I Can – Here and Now" in Bulgaria heard more about Wikipedia
From the Community

Klexikon: the German 'childrens' Wikipedia' in Montréal

Wikipedia is now a part of Textbook in Informatics

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

historysouthaustralia.net

Hi Bilby I've just removed a link at Morphett Street, Adelaide, which may have been useful once but is now worse than a dead link. It's now a rather illiterate site dealing with tourism to the Eastern States, including some information not dealt with in the usual tourist blurbs. I'm afraid it may affect more than just a forgettable immigration officer called John Brown, but don't have the wit or knowledge to track down other articles affected. Is this something up your street ? Doug butler (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: October 2017

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 9 | October 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue


Featured Topic

Your community should discuss to implement the new P&E Dashboard functionalities

From the Community

Wikidata implemented in Wikimedia Serbia Education Programe

Hundred teachers trained in the Republic of Macedonia

Basque Education Program makes a strong start

From the Education Team

WikiConvention Francophone 2017

CEE Meeting 2017

Sanity appreciated

Hi Bilby, I've been reading lots of your contributions to the discussion @talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure, and I just wanted to say thanks for being the voice of respect and reason. Lots of other editors want new laws to address their fears, so thanks for providing a breath of fresh air! Dougmcdonell (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444

I was writing a reply to you and while I was doing that, the thread was closed, so am posting here.

I feel I owe you a reply and have tried like five times to write something short. The fundamentals here are:

  • KDS4444 sees no difference for him between what he does for pay, and what he does as a volunteer. Not even at OTRS.
  • KDS4444 has no understanding that commercially-paid and volunteer activities are seen by most of the community as being different, and needing complete separation (e.g. OTRS) or management.
  • KDS444 has pretty low standards for N, and likes to edit templates and notability guidelines (not problems of themselves)
  • The community's trust in KDS4444 is pretty much destroyed
  • KDS444 has recently written things like this: My username shall never again be associated with paid editing disclosures and this: no paid editor, knowing what I have now learned, should ever disclose being paid by anyone.

Put all those things together, put various restrictions in place to try to manage all those, and there is no workable solution. There is no shared starting ground for one, due to the first two bullets. KDS4444 just feels put-upon and bitter, and will keep doing things that are questionable, especially in light of the last three bullets, leading to ongoing bursts of ugly, time-wasting drama in the community, and to KDS4444 becoming even more unhappy and bitter.

The community has low tolerance for paid editing but there is also low tolerance for drama around it.

Hence the proposal. To end it. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is probably a longer replay than it should be, but this has been bothering me and I think you would be one of the few who might understand where I'm coming from.
I think that KDS4444 was particularly unwise. What they did on OTRS was abysmal, and I have no time for anyone who would abuse trust in that way. Their decision to move the articles from draft into mainspace, when they should have been well aware of how that would be seen, was either deliberate prodding or showed an immense lack of understanding of the situation. I don't have a problem, though, with the few issues where they've raised concerns about the treatment of paid editors - that was not a big issue, and their points were largely accurate.
However, as you know, I've been fighting against paid editing for years - probably over a decade by now. I've tried to do it quietly for various reasons, in part due to WP:BEANS, but lately that's becoming pointless. For most of this time the community was largely indifferent, and community policies always ended up taking precedence over fighting COI. In recent months that has turned around, with this emerging lack of tolerance being used to support actions and policy changes that go completely against what were the community norms. We've moved from finding it very difficult to prove paid editing because avoiding WP:OUTING was given precedence, to requiring disclosure (a great move, btw), and then to permitting outing by proxy with the linking to paid ads and the current proposal on meta to require paid editors out themselves in advance. We've gone from discussion and trying to get paid editors to meet policy, to indef blocks without warning on the assumption that they can always argue the block after it has been made. We now apply G5 on the suspicion that a paid editor must have been banned in the past. And we now jump straight to an site ban without trying any other community measures first. For me, this has swung too far in the other direction, and thus I'm forced to try and take a moderate stance. I may hate paid editing, but I'm very, very concerned that in combating it we might lose the principals that made WP work.
As mentioned, I have little patience for KDS4444, and based on recent actions this was a likely outcome. But I have to be an outlier on two grounds. One is the simple belief that our principal of escalating sanctions was a good one, so when we skip the steps and jump straight to the end I think we lose something. And the other is purely practical - I don't think I've ever seen a case where we banned a paid editor and they didn't come back to continue the paid editing with at least as much success through socks. There may be one or two, but they would be exceptions. Maybe this will be an exception as well, and that would be a good thing. But if this follows the usual pattern, the only outcome will be to make more work and have less success. I know that I'm fighting a fool's battle - whatever the community decision, someone was going to find an excuse to indef block KDS444 - but I wish we didn't run between two extremes, neither of which is solving the actual problem. - Bilby (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not too long, and I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness, and the principles you are articulating, as well as their application to this case. I heard what you were saying in the AN, and wanted to give you my response to that stuff.
The case of KDS4444 is such an outlier in my experience. I have never encountered somebody like this. Hard to generalize from it. I just didn't see a way for KDS4444 to remain in the community without going down a long road of drama good for nobody, given how he appears to be wired.
Please know that I have no doubt at all that you want the community to find ways to better manage the problem of COI/paid editing/advocacy and that I have always seen you as part of the solution. And I hear you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am listening to that and thinking about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big picture

I don't think I have ever seen a description of your vision for how the community should handle paid editing (am asking narrowly so as not ask too much, but of course you can broaden if you want to, to COI and advocacy, of course!). Would you mind laying that out? Or have you written that somewhere that you can link to? Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do this. However, it depends a bit on some data I've been collecting for the last few weeks on paid editing disclosure - I pretty much have it done, but I'll tidy it up tonight before I comment. -Bilby (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Data! OK, whenever you like. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to worry about data later - I'm about to have all of this semester's exams dropped on me, so marking will have to take priority for a week. It is more about the why and the how, though, rather than the what.
I'm going to start with two premises. a) That paid editing is a net negative to the project, and b) we aren't ever going to be able to stop it. I wish we could, but the more prominent Wikipedia becomes, the more people will see it as essential that they control their image here. The only way to remove all paid editing is to have Wikipedia lose prominence until it isn't worth paying to be on, and that isn't the solution we're looking for. In regard to definitions, I see four different groups of paid editors. a) Those who work in marketing for an organisation; b) those who are professional PR agents who wish to have an ongoing relationship with their clients; c) the one-off freelancers who accepted a job but have never edited WP before; and d) the full time WP freelancers who do not need to maintain an ongoing relationship with a given client, but instead generally just rely on volume over quality. The first two are fairly easy to manage, the last one being our biggest problem. So my comments are mostly directed to the last group.
When you can't prevent a problem, you either give up or try to limit its effects. I don't see how paid editing can ever be anything but a net negative, but I don't want to give up. Therefore my focus is on damage limitation rather than prevention. That means two lines of attack - push as much of the paid editing as we can into channels which we can have a degree of control over, (aka disclosed paid editing), and try to limit paid editing which we cannot control (undisclosed paid editing). The compromise ideal is a situation where there is little to no market for paid editors that do not follow our policies, and where clients that might have gone to undisclosed editors instead hire editors who are willing to follow policy. We won't reach the ideal, but every potential client who chooses not to hire an undisclosed editor, and instead hires one who is open about their paid editing, is a small win in the sense that it is less of a negative for us, and we have a chance to moderate their actions.
To do this we need to make it worthwhile to engage in disclosed paid editing, and try to make it as unpalatable as possible to engaged in undisclosed editing. Unfortunately, this is all about balance - we can't have a free-for-all, as the point is for disclosed editors to be managed, not left to do as they will. Thus we have to restrict their activities. But if we restrict it too much, they will find undisclosed paid editing to be more profitable. I want to walk a middle ground.
My difficulty at the moment is that the only people we seem to be able to target are the disclosed paid editors. By definition, the undisclosed paid editors aren't going to be affected by policies we create, because they will ignore them. Which means that we are making it very, very difficult for people to operate as disclosed paid editors, and each policy we introduce makes it progressively worse. We are making it vastly more profitable to be undisclosed, to the extent that almost none of the paid editors in the fourth group disclose what they are doing.
In essence, I want to give disclosed paid editors enough rope that they can choose to follow policy and still make a go at it, rather than move into undisclosed paid editing where they will make almost as much with virtually no oversight. If they use the rope to hang themselves, then we act accordingly - but at least we'll have a better choice of spotting it when it occurs. - Bilby (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I love what you wrote. I am sorry I forgot but are you aware of the "paid editing guild" thing i was trying to promote? The idea being that good faith paid editors would join it, and we (and WMF) would make it very well known that there are 'white hat' paid editors, and everybody else are basically industrial polluters that should be avoided like the plague. The "guild' would also have done a lot of work of training new paid editors in best practices. A lot of people hated that idea but I am still thinking about something like it under WP Integrity.
But the idea is exactly to reward good guys and make things ugly for the bad guys. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
btw have you followed the Mister Wiki mess at COIN at all? These are strange days but i am hopeful for a good outcome there. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shill

You reverted me. Please discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shill#memes Benjamin (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

COI

I was about to make a new comment at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_-_Assessing_the_status_of_the_WP:COI_guideline when Jytdog closed it. I see his attempt at gathering some opinion as perfectly reasonable and clearly understandable. Unfortunately, there is a popular misconception that all WP:Request for comment have to be a vote on something. I have worked closely with Jytdog for several months because we were largely instrumental in bringing some test cases to bear. This has demonstrated that whatever anyone thinks, some serious consideration should be made to define COI more tightly and if necessary, convert it to a policy. Whether people would respect it more is probably beyond the point, but policies trump guidelines and it's therefore easier to enact on them. I'm sure Jyt is only trying to get feedback so that a major RfC proposal could be carefully drafted. Like me however, he is beginning to get frustrated when his efforts get constantly nipped in the bud, and I would be very disappointed if we were no longer able to count with his collaboration on these issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note Kudpung. Other people can do what they want at those documents. I will work on other stuff.Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I wanted to know. - Bilby (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By hacking away at me with questions full of blatantly bad faith mischaracterizations like "Why are you pushing for this to be made policy" you made the RfC into a mess for anybody approaching it with good faith. I have been growing increasingly concerned by things you were writing at WT:PAID as I noted here but after this, I no longer trust you on these matters. You have burnt the bridge between us pretty much to the ground. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could have answered the question. - 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
It is impossible to answer a begged question. You repeatedly asked me the equivalent of "does your mom know that you beat your wife" - in an RfC where people come bearing very sharp axes and have difficulty hearing. I cannot trust you any longer and I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is unusual when asking why an RfC is being run is equated to "does your mum know that you beat your wife". But ok. You have an unusual take on things. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me multiple times why i was trying to push for COI to be policy. You are now simply trolling. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is helping you. Perhaps some distance will make things easier. But I'll leave it at that. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it helping you.Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Distance will, I hope, help. - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: November 2017

Wikipedia Education globe
Wikipedia Education globe
This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 10 | November 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue


From the Community

Hashemite University continues its strong support of Education program activities

Wikicontest for high school students

Exploring Wikiversity to create a MOOC

Wikidata in the Classroom at the University of Edinburgh

How we defined what secondary education students need

Wikipedia Education Program in Bangkok,Thailand

Shaken but not deterred

Wikipedia workshop against human trafficking in Serbia

The WikiChallenge Ecoles d'Afrique kicks in 4 francophones African countries


From the Education Team

A Proposal for Education Team endorsement criteria

In the News

Student perceptions of writing with Wikipedia in Australian higher education

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bilby. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFC

Thanks! The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMINACCT

I have now asked you twice if you are acting in an admin capacity at David Wolfe (entrepreneur) - First diff, to which you did not respond when you replied, and the second time to which you replied And I have no idea why you are raising "admin capacity" - this is simply about whether or not the sourcing meets BLP standards for a contentious claim.

To explain why I am raising the question - the article is subject to BLP DS per the notice at the top of the talk page. You are an admin citing BLP. Are you acting as an admin or are you acting as an editor (in which case you are involved and not acting as an admin}. If you do not answer this time I will be taking this to AN.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very inclined to escalate this at high speed. I have no idea why you are taking this path, when a discussion about the sources would be much more appropriate and valuable - threats are never particularly appealing. At any rate, I've responded at the article. - Bilby (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem inclined to obfuscate. You kinda sorta answered. I will take it that you did not edit to enforce BLP as an admin but simply as an editor, and you are now completely INVOLVED there. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked a strange question. It is easier to answer when the question makes sense. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: December 2017

This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 11 | December 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue


From the Community

Wikimedia Serbia has established cooperation with three new faculties within the Education Program

Updates to Programs & Events Dashboard

Wiki Camp Berovo 2017

WM User Group Greece organises Wikipedia e-School for Educators

Corfupedia records local history and inspires similar projects

Wikipedia learning lab at TUMO Stepanakert

Wikimedia CH experiments a Wikipedia's treasure hunt during "Media in Piazza"

From the Education Team

Creating digitally minded educators at BETT 2017

In the News

Things My Professor Never Told Me About Wikipedia

"Academia and Wikipedia: Critical Perspectives in Education and Research" Conference in Ireland

Science is shaped by Wikipedia

Please recover Arctic Zero article to my Userspace

Hi. Please recover deleted Arctic Zero article to my userspace. I was approached by the guy who wanted to have this article on Wikipedia. My initial check showed that the company (brand) might be notable and I would like to take a look at the article. I am creating articles only following COI editing policy. It will apply to this article as well if I get to work on it. Thanks! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Bbarmadillo, please see your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IGI Global

That journal. Check it out. It is quarterly, costs in excess of $500 per year, and each issue contains only a handful of articles, mostly by the editorial board. I could not find it in the journal citation index: it does not seem to have an impact actor. IGI Global is well known as an academic vanity press: this may be resume inflation or it may be IGI looking for halo effect, but it is controversial, so requires an independent source. Affiliated primary sources are only acceptable for uncontroversial content, as you know. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was with your removal on the basis that the source did not support the "emeritus editor" claim [1]. I checked the source, and it states that he is emeritus editor. You are also incorrect about it not having an impact factor, and the publisher is not on Beal's list. I'm also hard pressed to see how the subject being an emeritus editor of a journal is controversial. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK: there were two IGI vanity journals, I thought this was the one I removed more recently. I did check the page, it's there now, it was definitely not there when I checked. No idea what happened. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Weinstein

Hi Bilby, would you have kept my page about Bret Weinstein had I included more info about his work in the field of Evolutionary Biology and his recent appearances with Jordan B Peterson and Sam Harris? I'm asking so that I can improve the page and make it follow the guidelines. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunkworks22 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The deleted content was still WP:BLP1E. I don't think anyone is unaware of Weinstein's epic bout of whitesplaining, but the AfD was pretty much spot on IMO and this is well covered in the Evergreen article. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korstanje

Have the socks been emailing you? They have me, demanding inclusion of the usual resume-padding. I'm not inclined to proxy for them, especially given the number of socks now blocked. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not been contacted regarding the article, except for the messages here which you reverted. - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: January 2018

Wikipedia Education globe
Wikipedia Education globe
This Month in Education

Volume 7 | Issue 1 | January 2018

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue


Featured Topic

Bertsomate: using Basque oral poetry to illustrate math concepts

From the Community

Wikimedia Serbia celebrated 10 years from the first article written within the Education Program

WikiChallenge Ecoles d'Afrique update

The first Swedish Master's in Digital Humanities partners with Wikimedia Sverige

How we use PetScan to improve partnership with lecturers and professors


From the Education Team

The Education Survey Report is out!

Education Extension scheduled shutdown

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

Has a very extensive "criticism" section, but the latest item seems well past "undue" to me, and you might wish to take a look there. I left a message on the talk page, but the BLP already has had problems in the past, and you might gain from gazing at it once more. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OnePath Network Article

Hi, Bilby

For OnePath Network, (I admit it's a paid job, and it's the only paid one out of my 15 articles and +300 edits on various Wikimedia projects). But I tried to be as neutral as possible.

  • The first paragraph: Simple words about the company + how they publish their content + a brief of their work.
  • History: a simple introduction to the company's fundraising, no details.
  • Growth: Statistics from sources + Mentioning Main three members of team + 2 examples of reception earned by other prominent newspapers.
  • Content: Formal briefing of their programs.
  • Interviews: Neutrally giving examples of exclusive interviews made by the network.
  • Presenters: Stating names of presenters.
  • Awards: Plain mentioning of awards earned.

I used many sources (The Guardian, HuffingtonPost, ABC.Net, DailyMail, Daily Telegraph, Governmental websites and others).

  • Note 1: I searched for similar approved published Wikipedia articles (about Islamic online networks) to make this new one, I found AJ+ and followed it.
  • Note 2: I added Paid Contributor disclosure.
  • Note 3: (Update): I made some edits, removing what might be considered promotional or info that is not able to be verified.


Thanks in advance and sorry for any disturbance. عليّ سعيد (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious six years!

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions about how I might help beyond writing articles

I am retired and might enjoy volunteering after years of working many long hours under stress in the IT industry. I read widely (mostly non-fiction and science related) and have thought about editing articles about books I have enjoyed, but not sure that Wikipedia is the venue for that, as Amazon, Goodreads, etc. seem to have taken precidence in Google.

Do you have any suggestions.

Thanks.

Gregorybarry (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilby&oldid=827831977"