Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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) Start a new discussion

Wikipedia Experts

WP:DENY(Struck by RF). Policy issues on paid editing, or COI or behaviour issues with specific editors, should not be discussed here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Heads up. Probably time to buy popcorn futures. – iridescent 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Market cornered. And where did I put my old CV? Seriously, though, I can't imagine how they expect to retain a low profile. Stings should drive them into the open fairly quickly, if that is the community's desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, we do not intent to keep a low profile; why would you assume so? On the contrary, to successfully supply a growing network of participating wikipedians with paid assignments, we have to make our offer well-known to prospective clients. This is why we announced our service via nationally-distributed press-release. I believe that our services will benefit not only participating writers, but also Wikipedia. Alex Konanykhin / founder of WikipediaExperts. [Disclaimer: I’m personally not an expert of Wikipedia; just an Internet entrepreneur whose company handles plenty of Online Visibility work.] AKonanykhin (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Yea it's probably easy to spot their accounts, this is WP:COI fest. Secret account 16:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Then look to see what editors have articles in common in the last couple of months. Popcorn anyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I have a strong suspicion I know who's behind it. As per my previous comments in the days of MWB, I personally don't have a problem with it—if the articles they contribute meet WP standards then it doesn't matter who's behind it, and if they don't they'll be deleted in the usual manner. I don't see that the COI here is any stronger than a fan editing the article on their favorite band. However, others disagree. – iridescent 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) They don't insert any desinformation, so no need to worry. –xenotalk 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Probably with an eye to sailing under their true colors here. After all, they must know that putting that page out there is like throwing the proverbial red flag before a bull.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "Just like financial auditors, we charge for our time, but with explicit requirement of UNCOMPROMISED INTEGRITY". Has he ever actually met an auditor? – iridescent 16:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Sure; I ran a few banks and that involved meeting auditors. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) "the pro bono work of the participating editors"... it's a simple scam. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I wonder what makes you assume the worst? I've done plenty of philantropy (sponsoring museums, theathers, medical research, etc.) - it's fun to promote what you like; even though my primary business is business, like seeing market niches where supply lags behind demand and capitalizing on the opportunity. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) It took around a minute to do some relevant digging. Of note, is that the domain(s) are part of the KMGi (advertising agency) group. You can all find the phone number for owner Alex K - indeed even get a photo of the chap off our article on him - with minimal effort if you want to chat to him. Pedro :  Chat  16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) To make the digging easier, KMGi's and my URLs were included in our press-release. I'll try to answer here all substantive points, though it may take some time due to my travel plans during this Thanksgiving week. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I personally dont have a problem with this as long as the article still meets WP's standards. In point of fact of the article goes higher than B clas it will still have to be reviewed by another editor anyway. I do however think that we should require something be put on the affected articles talk page (maybe something to the effect of this article was developed in part by a paid contributer) and or identify said users as paid editors. In my opinion its ok if someone is getting paid by someone to make and article or a group of articles on WP better but we should mark both to make sure that they arent running amuck. IF someone wants to pay someone else to edit an article that can be edited for free then let them spend the money (its sorta like a donation). --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I also don't see a problem with this as long as it is transparent. Services like this wont go away, in fact they will just increase as the years go by. Doing our best to reign them in will save countless of hours of BS. I say allow paid editing as long as it is transparent under WP:COI. This particular group appears to wish to work in compliance with Wikipedia policies. It is much better for Wikipedia to welcome paid editors in a transparent manner than to endlessly deal with the hassle of anonymous COI editing.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I suggested to Jimbo establishing reasonalbe oversight procedures over consultancies like ours. We want to make sure that we establish ourselves as the factor which facilitates Wikipedia's development, and not be suspected of being fly-by-night hackers who pollute it with advertorials. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Having browsed their site, I am concerned by the following statements and the underneath implication: "represent your company in a positive, but objective manner." and "When damaging content is spotted, the changes will be undone by our staff." While I believe their editors would produce material that seemingly conforms to all policies, I am concerned that they would intentionally leave out and/or remove material negative to the client's public image. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I think it's a given they themselves will intentionally miss out negative information, but they do state that they cannot remove true negative information - to be fair they've done their research for this site - just more fool anyone who pays them 99 dollars a month for something they could do themselves. Pedro :  Chat  17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (ec)And that is different from your average editor editing in areas they feel strongly about how? Most of the content creation and content haggling here is POV already, at least with transparent paid editing the POV is out in the open for everyone to see. It is much easier to review such work and to correct it for POV issues.Griswaldo (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I also agree. Im sorta on the fence I admit and the system works pretty well as we have it however I do believe this activity is currently going on in the shadows and if we build in some acceptance and a way to keep track of it then we can not only bring it out of the shadows but also potentially gain from it. I do think we need to proceed cautiously, maybe do it as a test to see how it goes, maybe even creating a different class of user similar to the Articles for creation process where it must be reviewed prior to being allowed. I think if we go about this the right way WP can gain from this and at the same time retain credibility. But if we just give a blanket allowance then we will take a big credibility hit. IMO anyone who wants to do something like this as a professional will meet the requirements we establish and those that do not wil get banned. And they will be found out, they always do. I believe that in order for the customer to gain anything from the article it would need to be at least a GA, probably A class or FA so as I mentioned before they will be heavily reviewed before they get done. With that said I do foresee edit wars, heated arguments, etc coming out of some of them as well as the potential for some POV editing and pruning out damaging details. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I think it is reasonable to expect that editors for such a business make their conflict of interest transparent and otherwise comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. If they do, they're as welcome to help us improve Wikipedia as any other COI editor.  Sandstein  18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The problem is that the probability will be that they will not disclose their COI, in order to maximize the degree to which they can post positive information and downplay or delete negative information. Any article in which they declare who they are an what they are doing will be watched by many editors eager to keep them on the straight and narrow, whereas if they attempt to fly under the radar and are successful at it, there would be much less attention given to their edits. The lack of any significant downside to trying this makes it probable that they will do so. Therein lies the potential danger to the project. (I'm quite willing to extend AGF to individual editors, but once they act collectively, and with a financial motivation, it's less imperative to do so.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I do agree Sandstein, and also agree to a lot of the comments of Kumioko (not sure about user classses, but I get your thrust). The simple truth is that this is a commercial organisation. A simple Google check shows they have already generated some commentary regarding their venture. If they (i.e. "their" editors - and that is a seperate conversation!) start editing with overt POV they get blocked. When enough get blocked, then their credibility is ruined. Their credibility is ruined = end of business venture. That's my take on it, from a purely commercial view. Pedro :  Chat  19:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (undent) My own personal opinion is that I am fine with the concept of professional writers contributing provided that their conflict of interest is clearly and explicitely disclosed (that what they are doing is, in the end, work for hire). They claim explicitly that they will follow our policies; if they do, they'd already be a darn sight better than many volunteers. If they don't, of if they try to behave covertly, then they will be found out and I expect the entire community would fall on them like a ton of sharp bricks, destroying any credibility in the process. — Coren (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Also in the case of a "business" view it should be fairly easy to track the IP range of computers within an organization that does these types of edits. If we create a report or list or something similar to the one we have for Congressional staff then that will be another way to monitor their activity. It is also possible to establish a bot to monitor for certain things and revert them or post a message of the activity somewhere like the administrative incidents notice board. In the End I should reiterate that Jimbo has been adamently opposed to commercial ventures of this type and although he generally lets the community decide rules of use and the developement of guidelines he has the final say. Since this affects WP as a business and could affect its credibility its probable that even if concensus is that it be allowed its unlikely that he will allow it. But things change and if we develop a process and rules that sufficientl govern, monitor and control it, he may allow this to at least test the feasability. Remeber too that WP is a not for profit entity and allowing these types of edits could (im not a lawyer just branstorming here) affect that status or may affect some of the corporate donations that provide WP its funding. If for example a company hires someone to write articles on topics related to them and they are a competitor of a company that supports WP it could impact the site negatively or be made into a media spectacle by the news. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You can actually apply for a job through them, so it's not one organisation. Anyone can do it as a 'contractor', and they'd presumably edit from home. I for one will be blocking most undeclared paid editors on sight, because they "appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization". I don't mind paid editors editing Wikipedia, as long as they a.) declare it and b.) recuse themselves from any discussions regarding their customers. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) If they're undeclared, how are you going to block them on sight? Spidey-sense? – iridescent 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Let's change that to 'block them as soon as I realise and have proof". A paid editor would fight to the death to keep one of these articles going, like Danieldis47 (talk · contribs) did, at which point it becomes pretty obvious. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Um, "recuse themselves from any discussions" is the opposite of what we want. We want people with a COI to talk to us. We even get very upset (to the point of blocking them) if they don't talk to us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) At which point I would come into the discussion and say this: We are extraordinarily ineffective at providing neutral, well-written, relatively complete and well-referenced articles about businesses and individuals - even as of this writing we have tens of thousands of unreferenced and poorly referenced BLPs - and equally bad at maintaining and updating them. Given this remarkable inefficiency, and the fact that a Wikipedia article is usually a top-5 google hit for most businesses and people, there's plenty of good reason for our subjects to say "enough is enough" and insist on having a decent article. We've all seen the badly written BLPs and the articles about companies where the "controversies" section contains every complaint made in the last 10 years. We aren't doing the job ourselves, and it's unrealistic to think that we can: the article-to-active editor ratio is 1:960 right now[1], and getting higher all the time. I'm hard pressed to tell someone that they can't bring in a skilled Wikipedia editor, following our own policies and guidelines, to bring an article they're interested in up to our own stated standards. As to COI, one wonders why financial benefit seems to raise all these red flags, when undisclosed membership in various organizations, personal beliefs, and life experiences may well lead to an even greater COI. "Put it on the talk page" only works if (a) someone is watching the article, (b) that someone doesn't have their own perspective that they feel is more valid, (c) and someone is willing to actually edit the article. Those three conditions aren't being met nearly enough (see editor-to-article ratio above). We've created the very situation where organizations and people are no longer willing to accept that they have to put up with a bad article about themselves. And precisely why should they be prevented from improving our project? Risker (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with Risker. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with her to a point, and when I say 'recuse themselves' I mean 'stay neutral but declared' rather tha, for example, voting KEEP in every AfD and launching ad hominem attacks on those they see as 'against' them. I work at OTRS, as you all know, so I'm more aware than most of the problems that our articles cause to people. However, our current system - through OTRS or talk pages - provides an avenue of reply to those who disagree with their article's content. I've seen two sides of paid editing: One side which is insidious, immoral and tarnishes the reputation of the project - the other side is full of people who do follow our rules and happily own up to it when they're first questioned. I don't mind the second sort of paid editor. However, the damage done to our reputation by the first sort is simply too great to ignore. Risker is right, but I think the real solution here is fewer articles, or more good editors. Can we stop all editors with a COI from editing a related article? Of course not, but that doesn't mean we should encourage it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC) They are infringing on the use of "Wikipedia®", a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. Not clever. Who wants to sick the lawyers on 'em? Fences&Windows 23:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Chase me ladies, are you going to block user:Amorrise and User:Rhettroberts who appear to be shilling for something call AutoPal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to block those accounts because they're from April 2010, and the problem with them is clearly over. A block would really be wasted effort. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I don't want you to put yourself out, but you may wish to look more closely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC) My apologies, I still don't think it's quite enough for a block - judging by the talk page edit to BuyNowPayNow, he may just be a new user. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) If you look at the user's first serious edit and later edits, the intervening motive should be abundantly clear. Without contravening WP:OUTING, I am unable to provide more evidence, but I am sure that you would find yet another reason not to block them. Can you perhaps outline the circumstances under which you would block someone for paid editing, or would you like to walk back your "I for one will be blocking most undeclared paid editors on sight etc" claim now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Q: Do you guarantee the articles you write will be accepted by Wikipedia? A: We guarantee that we will submit professional content, consistent with Wikipedia rules and standards; however, Wikipedia does not have a central acceptance authority that makes a final conclusion about the admissibility of articles. An article may be flagged, edited and removed at any time by any user or administrator. In such cases, we will make the necessary changes and resubmit it until it is accepted. The $295 introduction package covers up to five hours of work. This is enough to complete most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application. The $99 monthly fee includes: Monitoring of your article by our proprietary software Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand -damaging content is posted Content updates whenever your company’s situation changes The $99 fee covers up to two hours of work per month. This is enough for most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application.[2] We've had cases where folks charge to write an article. This is the first I've seen that includes a maintenance contract. It appears that the writers from this site intend to do whatever is necessary to prevent articles from being deleted. If they are not transparent in revealing their COI, and participate in AFDs, etc, then that's a problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC) This underlines the point I made above. "Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand-damaging content is posted" - do we really want to commercialise Wikipedia if this is the result? What happens when the AfD goes through and the company requires all its staff to formulate keep arguments and post them? What happens if one of those paid editors is the closing administrator? Slippery slope! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, that statement is inimicable to NPOV, which requires the inclusion of all significant points of view, even the "brand-damaging" ones.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) It is refreshing that some editors do declare their COI. Note this editor's involvement with the BLP of Alex Konanykhin. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Sort of an incentive to keep your maintenance contract. If you cancel it your article will be thrown to the wolves or worse yet, your former contractors will lead the brigade of pitchforks and torches.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I was kinda thinking that too. I wonder how long until one of these companies decides to act like a protection racket? As an aside, what constitutes a "state of the art" article? I would hate to think I am writing obsolete articles... Resolute 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC) @Resolute. The Cognoscenti generally agree that Mobile Suit Gundam is state of the art. Template off that, and you should be fine.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Are we going to take this seriously or not? - Paid for editing by corporate teams is happening all the time. Are we going to actually address this, and create a framework for this to happen, or continue to place our heads in the sand forever? In 2006, User:MyWikiBiz set up a paid for editing account, and all Wikipedia decided to do, was to ban it outright, block him, and delete his contributions. This is not going to make the problem go away, it is only going to drive it underground. This isn't MyWikiBiz, it isn't some kook, it's a professional marketing company, they're not idiots. For newer editors who want to see how the previous discussion was handled, take a look at Arch Coal and its history. A very good starting point is its DRV, I made similar arguments then. Wikipedia is too important, too visible for corporations and political entities to ignore. Paid for editing is happening right under our noses because our current policies at WP:COI keep them in the dark. The whole point of Wikipedia's open source model, is to allow for peer review, we should be embracing the strengths of open source to shine a light on their activities. Ideas for a framework for paid-editing All paid-for editors must declare their position in particular, who they're working for and their clients, at a centralised page Paid editors must declare their positions on their user and talk pages It may be possible to create some user flag, to allow for all paid edits to be tracked centrally Repeal Wikipedia:USERNAME#Company.2Fgroup_names policy, and actually encourage users to be up front about their affiliations Allow the creation of role accounts. Entities may wish to use a single voice on Wikipedia, but they may have multiple personnel responsible. Instead of having pile-ons from meatpuppets, they would have a single consistent voice. This isn't useful just for COI, but I think would improve our WP:GLAM collaborations. I think, just as I did in 2006, that there is a role for paid-for editing on Wikipedia. Our coverage of corporations is lacking, because unless they make video games, they don't have fans, and its fans generally, who start those articles regardless on any POV issues. The average consumer does not see what a B2B does - have you heard of Informatica? Well, they're worth over $3Bil, and we probably wouldn't have an article on them unless they wrote it themselves, which they did. Before we deleted it and decided to work against them, rather than with them. There are still holes in major market indices, let alone private corporations. Its clear that corporations are taking us seriously, we need to start taking them seriously, the status quo is not good enough. - hahnchen 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) You say we cannot maintain the status quo, but I ask, "why not?". If the paid editors become POV pushers, we block them, just as we do any other POV pusher. If they add quality content within our guidelines, we let it stand. If paid editors are willing to advertise their position, by all means let them. If they don't, there isn't really anything we can do about it. You speak of requiring paid editors to note that they are such; how do we enforce this? You have been asking "how should we deal with paid editors", but a question we must answer first is "what can we do about paid editors?". As I see it, we have three general options. We can block them as soon as we have proof that they're being paid. The obvious ones get caught, the less obvious continue with their work. I don't favor this approach, but it's what we've done in the past. We can just ignore it, and treat their contributions like we would any other editor, whether they reveal that they're being paid or not. I prefer this approach. Or, we can make up some "rules" that paid editors must follow. Maybe some will follow these rules, many certainly won't. I think this approach sets up an antagonistic relationship that isn't necessary. These are really the only choices we have. We can't ban paid editing outright, and we can't require that all paid editors "register" or take on their own user class (these attempts fall under options 1 and 3, respectively). Buddy431 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The status quo keeps COI editors in the dark. Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest says that you shouldn't create or edit articles. Please get real. Proposals Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) and Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) want to outright ban it. This cannot be done. Our framework should dictate all paid editors declare themselves, or face bans if caught - it's not going to be easy for a corporation to move IP addresses. There should be a way to monitor all COI edits. We should allow disclosures in their usernames and allow role accounts to make it even clearer. Right now, we have no framework, and an antagonistic attitude towards any COI editors that we find. Because of this, disclosure is rare and responses scattered. - hahnchen 13:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) There has always been and likely always will be paid editors whether we allow them to be open about it is the only issue. Meanwhile the COI crusaders can carpet bomb hundreds of articles with COI tags so the tag is rendered meaningless. It would be more constructive to get COI and paid editors to simply follow the editing rules and continue to show the disruptors the door.Wroted (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Or of course, we can let the paid editing crusaders carpet bomb hundreds of articles with POV so the article is rendered useless. Works both ways. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC) So to be clear, POV problems only come from paid editors or do you mean all paid editors are POV crusaders? Either way you're mistaken. We deal with POV issues and any others the exact same way. Wroted (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Is there any way the Foundation can contact this website and explain to them what exactly they are doing? I tried, they don't seem to be taking regular people seriously. I, for one, am blocking any users who are writing spam articles and being paid to do so. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) OTRS could potentially do it - potentially, and only with approval from the appropriate office folks - but what would we say? 'What you're doing is sort of not OK with us?' Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the website knows exactly what they're doing. They're professionals - KMGi (advertising agency), an article written by User:Camper-mann. - hahnchen 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Idea, we could have a policy where all paid editors are required to request the "paideditor" flag/group. We could than more easily track these contributions, we could also maybe do something with flagged revisions on these edits,,,? I agree with others above. This isn't going away, might as well manage it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC) This presumes that paid editors will be treated with good faith - which they obviously are not - and that they all will identify themselves which is absurd because there is little to gain and no way for us to know. Wroted (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The paid editors tend to create whitewashed articles. I reported a user here: [3] who is editing on behalf of Neovia (Neteller) and has performed an outrageous whitewash job on the article as I noted previously, but also since then [4]. (Nothing was done) The article is a corporate fantasy (cf. [5]) and the interests of wikipedia are certainly not served by having it edited by the corporation. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) that in and of itself doesn't mean all paid editors (that we know of because they have self-identified or have been outed by a certain group invested in such things) does not mean all paid editors are bad just as we know better than to assume all non-paid editors are good. Instead we know those pushing a POV, whether it be against Wikipedia in general or pro-corporate are likely not worth keeping around. An easy content kept vs disruption ratio would feret ot those whose goals are against Wikipedia.Wroted (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to add that I also attempted to contact them and although I have for the most part been willing to go along with allowing this was given the distinct impression they would only deal with Wikicorporate concerns and not those of the individual editors. In the end that won't matter when and if they start actually editing but it does give me pause to reflect on how best to approach the matter and makes it clear to me that there will be some growing pains if this is allowed. One major concern that I do have is that if they have enough editors under their employ they could theoretically force consensus in their favor so we should devise a plan to rule that out as well.--Kumioko (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is "The encyclopedia anyone can edit." WP:COI allows users to make contributions to articles where a conflict of interest exists, so long as those edits are neutral. We all have conflicts of interest. If someone wants to offer their Wikipedia editing services for hire, they are doing this externally to Wikipedia. There is nothing we can and should do. Paid editing happens here all the time. Treat paid articles the same way you would any article. If it's an article written within our guidelines, fine. If it isn't, we have WP:CSD and WP:AFD. If someone wants to be disruptive about it, we have WP:BLOCKING. We already have the tools in place, and we already use them. Paid editing just happens under the radar. If someone wants to do it publicly, more power to them. If their editing skills aren't up to par and they can't get articles past our editing standards, this is not our problem. Prohibiting paid editors, however, is simply not an option. N419BH 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Offer to WikipediaExperts Hi, hope you're reading this. I think anyone planning to pay your fees may be deterred by this beauty currently sitting on your front page, above the "Free Consultation" box: We will gladly provide a free consultation for you, including a proposal on developing your visibly on Wikipedia and in other social media That should read "visibility". WikipediaExperts, if you're reading this, I offer that correction to you for free, but can I recommend you add an 'edit' button, so we can help you out properly? This collaborative editing thing we have going here really is quite powerful. I'm offering to copyedit your site for you, (something I have some 'expertise' in) in exchange for a $1,000 donation to the Wikimedia foundation... oh, and a thank you on my user talk would be nice. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC) You missed "desinformation" SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Also on the same page, missed 'free of chaNge', that should be 'free of chaRge'. I will consult with the parties involved and reply to your offer soon. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Cutting to the chase I am inviting User:Eclipsed to contribute to this discussion. As I pointed out upthread (forgetting that subtlety is wasted here), Eclipsed has declared a COI on their user page and just today proposed that "...both the Article Incubator and Articles for Creation be denoted as Safe Harbors for COI contributions". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the invitation. I will read through all the discussions, and reply as soon as I can.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) re: Trademark - I will make sure this is brought to the attention of the appropriate people. re: Discussion with WMF - There has been some communication, but I do not know the status. re: Risk of forced consensus - Important issue. This has to be mitigated as best as possible. re: My declaring COI - Wow. That was not an easy thing to do. I knew that once I clicked Save Page that my life as a wikipedian would be changed forever. There would be no going back. I thought there was a really big chance I'd get ANI'd and eternally banned, plus have all my clients pissed off at me for the trouble I caused. That didn't happen, and I am much appreciative of the WP:AGF approach taken by everyone involved. Thanks!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I don't understand Eclipsed's statement that he or she has an "Inherent Conflict Of Interest". In respect to what? A conflict of interest must be in relation to something else: a person, a company, a subject or some sort. There is no such thing as an "inherent" general COI. What is Eclipsed COI about, or is this some kind of goof? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC) There's a discussion about that on my talk page. I was concerned about WP:NOTADVERTISING.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     03:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC) You should declare the company you work for in your disclosure statement, just saying you have an "inherent conflict of interest" is fairly meaningless. That you're worried about NOTADVERTISING pretty much shows the lack of framework we have for paid editing. - hahnchen 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC) OK, will work on improving the statement. I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious[6] by[7] now[8] who I work for, and that I'm part of the C-suite of the newly formed company that is being discussed in this thread. Having a clearer framework for commercial editing would be most helpful.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I agree that a clear framework for commercial editing would be a good idea. Generally, the choices are to ignore it, to ban it or to regulate it. I believe the first is irresponsible and the second is impractical, so I would suggest that paid editors be required to register at a central location and to specify their COI (specifically as paid editors) on article talk pages, that there be a clear benefit to doing so (ability to edit freely, within the bounds of COI policy, or a new paid-COI policy) and a negative incentive for not registering, such as that all their edits are deleted en-masse (as far as is practical) if unregistered paid editing is discovered. Paid editors should also be disqualified from serving as admins or functionaries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Re-hashing old discussions If this is going to turn into a re-hash of Project talk:Paid editing (guideline) (and related pages), except with a different (new) set of paid editors being held up as examples, then could you please hold it either there or on the Village Pump, where the discussion will be seen as involving all of the editorship? Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I think that editors hired by companies to whitewash their articles go beyond COI and beyond paid editing. A person named in a Wikipedia article has a personal stake, yes, but he also has his own knowledge, decision-making power, and reputation. A hired whitewasher is just an hourly employee with no special ability to improve an article, but every motivation to make it worse. Based on occasional editing forays it is my opinion that a substantial fraction of corporate articles, but certainly not all, are currently guarded by such employees (e.g. Apple iProducts); I assume they work for some more discreet operation. The key factor to consider here is that for me to remain unsure that a given editor is really a company shill (I haven't named anyone here because I am unsure), he has to edit many topics about many different companies. This implies that either a lot of time is wasted on camouflage edits, or else a lot of companies do business with the same Wiki fix-it firm. While I can't tell just by looking at edits one by one, a mechanized tool might be built which looks at the web of associations between company articles and tries to find statistically significant overlap in the editors who rapidly revert edits made to their pages. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Conflict of interest doesn't mean someone can't edit. We have editors with conflicts of interest editing all the time. Some cause problems by it, others do not. The key thing to keep in mind is whether or not the editor with a conflict of interest is not following our policies and guidelines. There is a big difference between someone being hired to white wash an article and someone simply being hired to pay attention to subjects that might be notable but might not otherwise garner editor attention. If they stay within our policies and guidelines, blocking on sight is nothing more than sour grapes and WP:POINTY edits. I'd seriously question the competency of any admin that did so without evidence that the account in question was violating the 5 pillars.--Crossmr (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC) No honour among thieves? I am curious about the interactions between User:Eclipsed and user:Sigma0 1, who, like Eclipsed, is a paid editor. Eclipsed appears to have nominated a number of their articles for deletion, but the remark that I think needs explanation is this one where Eclipse suggests that Sigma0 1 read the WP:COI guideline. If Wikipedia allows paid editors, are we likely to see more of this type of activity where competing companies fight amongst themselves or carry on proxy battles with good-hand/bad-hand sockpuppets? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, I nominated a few of Sigma0 1's articles for deletion, because I felt they did not meet the inclusion standards of Wikipedia. I felt Sigma0 was operating in a negative manner, based on a disregard for the policies and guidelines agreed to by the community. Sigma0 was putting his clients first, instead of wikipedia first. Any paid or commercial editor operating inside wikipedia should "wear their wikipedia hat" first, and be able to tell their clients "No, you can't do that". Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     02:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC) (Question: Should Sigma0_1 be officially notified of this discussion? If so, DeliciousC: I think you should do it, as you were the first to mention.)     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     03:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) A bit more clarity 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 of the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING. A bit about how I came to be here: I was part of the underground economy. I came back from a long wikibreak because I got a freelance job to make a BLP, and it seemed like something fun to do. But after I started working on the article, I also started reading up on the guidelines and policies. It took a while to go through them all, and I got more freelance jobs in the meantime. I also had some of my team members help out, and tried my best to train them on the wiki-basics, NPOV, RS, etc. But eventually I came to realize that what I was doing was not acceptable to the community, and on the business side, it was not sustainable. So I started puting feelers out. I put the articles I worked on up for peer review and put myself up for editor review. But no response, my requests just sat in the backlog. I even had a crazy notion of going up for RfA. I contacted a few people about admin tutoring and did a little self-review of my history. But in the end, I thought I'd get snowed, the whole RfA environment turned me off, and I knew there would be unmitigatable COI issues. Then I met Alex. He showed me the website, and I was a bit shocked. The first thing I did was a WHOIS lookup, and saw his name, company address, contact info, everything! Right out in the open. Ouch. I thought there was no way I should join, the biz would surely get shut down within a few days of going public. But then we chatted some more, and I came to realize that he wanted to actually work within wikipedia, according to all the alphabet soup of guidelines and policies. After some more discussion about the Code of Ethics and the Pro bono plans, I was convinced and signed on. More later, Thanks!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     10:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Eclipsed, I believe one of the issues many people have with paid editing on Wikipedia is the feeling that there is often an inherent dishonesty in their dealings with other editors, which springs from their motivation which, unlike other editors, is not to accurately portray a person or product but simply to get that article up on Wikipedia, frame it as positively as possible and keep it there. While you are certainly well-spoken and much more clever than many of the paid editors I have encountered here, you also seem to suffer from the same inability to tell the whole truth. You returned from your long wikibreak to create the BLP of Guy Bavli on 3 October 2010 All of your edits (as User:Eclipsed) are Bavli-related until you ccreated Online Legal Marketplace on 15 October 2010 Also on 15 October 2010, you made your first Alex Konanykhin edit You put yourself up for editor review on 4 November 2010, nearly a month later Your use of "team members" to edit articles with you is a very good tactic. Editors who are not aware that you are all paid editors working together -- and how could they know that? -- would have the impression that a subject is more well-known than they are or that there is some consensus among unrelated editors. Talk:Guy Bavli is a good example of this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC) These are all very good points. My 'journey' from the underground into the light was not an easy one. I've made mistakes. More then a few times. I'm hoping that I can stick around and try to help build some framework that everyone can accept, so we all know what mistakes to avoid. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     18:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Why are we helping to promote this service by advertising here? Just apply WP:DENY for best results. We find lots of people writing their own poor quality PR puff pieces on Wikipedia. If a professional gets involved, the results will either be the same or perhaps better. If a paid editor happens to write an acceptable quality article, we will ignore them. If they write bad articles which get deleted, we can warn and eventually block them. Existing processes are capable of dealing with this. Posting here is not helpful, and may actually be harmful. Jehochman Talk 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editors are vandals?

I am confused as to why the discussion above was collapsed with the rationale being WP:DENY, which is an essay about denying recognition to vandals. Although Jehochman suggested this discussion was promoting a particular company, I had just pointed out several inconsistencies in the story offered to us by User:Eclipsed. I note also that good-faith contributions to the discussion by the company's owner were reverted. We often skirt around the issue of COI and paid editing with suspected paid editors and admins. Rather than debating this issue in an echo chamber, wouldn't it be productive to engage known paid editor in a dialogue? Can we please re-open this discussion (or at least come up with a plausible reason for shutting it down)? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:DENY is not particularly applicable. Surely the salient point is that this really isn't an admin question, and the discussion you want should take place elsewhere, I would think WP:VPP, since any consensus reached will probably require a change in the WP:COI policy, either to tighten it up, or re-framing it in regard to paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that some people here would like to have a more general discussion about paid editing (and some would very much like to avoid having that discussion), but I am interested in discussing the specifics of this particular company and its editors. WP:AN seems to be an appropriate venue for that discussion and Eclipsed has very kindly agreed to participate here. I see no good coming from shutting down a productive dialogue on some flimsy excuse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • First off, I'm someone who normally doesn't read this board, but only is here because the paid editing issue is always an...interesting...debate. I have to absolutely agree with DC here, as I don't understand how WP:DENY could apply (and in fact seeing it used in general almost always bothers me, though that's a discussion for another time). Both parties associated with the company seem to be acting in good faith, and deleting someone's comments because "the discussion is closed" seems more vandalistic than anything, or at the very least extremely bitey. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • See here for the reason. It would probably be good if an admin would conclude the discussion with an appropriate summary. N419BH 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Although I don't mind the collapsible box due to the length of the string I also think Deny was a bit short sighted. Whether we want to admit it or not we are going to have to deal with this eventually. As I see it we can either stick our heads in the sand and play see no evil or just work it out. Unless Jimbo comes and crushes this debate (a message has been left on his talk page) I think there are a lot of good points being argued on both sides. In my opinion though if we establish criteria and rules to deal paid editing, and they are editing in good faith and abiding the rules then why should they be turned away. --Kumioko (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You have Project talk:Paid editing (guideline) and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Use them! Stop complaining that a mis-placed discussion, that should be had amongst the entire editorship and that is inappropriate for the administrators' noticeboard, didn't get very far here (mislabelling in the collapsenote aside). You know where the places for such discussions are. One has 10 pages of archives on this very subject. Use them! This is a noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite. And FWIW, I know of course WP:DENY is about vandals, but the related principle of denying unnecessary recognition to paid editors seems similarly sound. If there are actual issues, they should be dealt with where appropriate, which is not here. Rd232 ^talk 09:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are actual issues, and since this started here I see no point in starting fresh discussion at AN/I where the background will need to be explained. Set aside the paid editing and look at the conduct of the editors involved. Look at Talk:Guy Bavli and tell me you don't consider what is happening there to be deceptive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but he might be right. That page almost makes me wish I had a batch-blocking button. I'm trying my best not to block them all right now for being SPA advertising accounts. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The background would be better briefly summarised in a new thread, and you can point here if anyone wants the whole WP:TLDR discussion. There are possible WP:MEAT issues (cf User:Eclipsed/Adoptees). Rd232 ^talk 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's something very fishy about the KMGi related edits.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I guess it would violate DENY to point to this rant from a paid editor who was unhappy about being blocked (as a sock of a blocked editor).[9][10] People like that make it clear why paid editing causes problems.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have to say I see no reason surpassing other conflict of interest groups to deplore paid editors. Indeed I would rather deal with a paid editor than a nationalist, obsessive, crank, conspiracy theorist, fundamentalist or extremist, since they are likely to realise that bad behaviour will reflect badly on their clients. Rich Farmbrough, 11:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
  

If only that were so! Yes, it's hard to say which is worse among the paid editors, nationalists, Chauvinists, etc. But there are special problems with paid editors, and some of them vary depending on the contracts. For example, one company says it will post an article and keep it for a week or so, but it expects full payment once the article has been up for a few days. In other words, when it comes to AfDs the client is on their own. OTOH, another company offers a complete service, apparently including billable hours at AfD. And these activities are sometimes (always?) pursued by puppet accounts, with little or not transparency. Meanwhile the nationalists are likely to post flags and make themselves known. So there are important differences.   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How is what you fear going to increase from the current situation? The whole point here is to get greater transparency, and allowing paid editing will do that if anything. If a company declares COI editing of an entry, when it goes to AfD much greater scrutiny will come of it, and socks are much more likely to be caught than if a company is editing with an undeclared and hidden COI. Companies that violate our policies will be banned from editing just like other users. In fact if we write specific policies to deal with this we could more easily ban an entire company instead of it's individual employees. If we don't do this we will just see an ever increasing amount of secret COI editing by marketing companies.Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The major problem we have with paid editors is that they are usually paid to have a bias. It's hard to criticize the person who writes your paychecks. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and errrr, this also includes every source used in every article. Unless you want to argue they are all biased (in which case I would agree) it cant be a valid argument in lesser context? Can it? I'm no expert on the topic. 84.107.147.147 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

More or less all published sources are biased, skewed and/or flawed one way or another. Those flaws are carried through to en.WP content. This is the core thinking behind the long standing WP:V: All one has is verifiability as to published source, truth is another topic altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that most top editors to a given article are at best enthusiasts of the topic they write about, and far from unbiased. Those lengthy articles about entertainers don't get written by detached non-fans, you know. Skomorokh 11:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You can be a fan of someone or something and still write a fair article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! You can be paid for something and still write a fair article. Skomorokh 12:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that some of the most skillful among paid en.WP editors are those who write content which doesn't stir up any fuss, is thoroughly sourced and keenly written, all within the policies. This is the same thing done by many unpaid (but skilled) editors who are eager about their topics and it's how much of the content here has been built. A harmful editor/writer can be disruptive, PoV flogging and heedless to policy whether paid or unpaid. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I kind of thought it was agreed that this was not the place for this discussion. But since it continues anyway: a fundamental difference between a paid editor and someone advocating for a topic out of conviction is that we believe (WP:AGF) that (a) the latter is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia as they see it (b) that they are open to persuasion, discussion, and argument. The paid editor has the interests of the subject (usually) at heart, and are not open to changing their mind in anything like the same way ("oh, right, this guy is non-notable, I'll give back my fee..."). Paid editors may be better at appearing to follow the rules, but because of the way Wikipedia's rules are mutable and inconsistently enforced, combined with the risk of socking or meatpuppetry, they are extremely dangerous if they exceed a very low proportion of editors. If POV nationalism is Wikipedia's cholesterol, paid editing is its cancer. The former you can manage (though it might cause heart attacks), the latter you just want to get rid of in case it one day causes death. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds to me that what where advocating is a WP version of "Dont ask, dont tell". We know thats its happening but as long as the paid editor keeps their mouth shut about it and maintains a low profile we pretend we dont know...but we know. Oh but if we "catch you" well block your account so go and create another one, maybe more than one using a different IP and or EMAIL address so that when we catch you, you wont be slowed down. I agree that POV editing is bad and I agree that there are serious risks to allowing paid editing, thats why we need to drag it out of the dark alleys and cast light on the shadows. If we draft some policies that must be followed in order for paid editors to operate (such as COI banners, preceding their comments with paid editor, forcing them to use an articles for creation/article incubator type system, or any number of other things) here then we are just kidding ourselves. Are we going to have to tweak things along the way, of course, absolutely, but if these editors are "professionals" and they want to continue to make money editing without having to hide, then they will abide. As an individual editor you can probably make a few bucks and stay hidden but for the big firms that have several editors and want to publicly and actively write, they are going to do it and if that means they have to generate dozens or hundreds of accounts, using different EMAIL domains and multiple source IP's then they will do that and generate a whole lot of work on us trying to figure them out. --Kumioko (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If an article is written in such a way that it adheres to policy, what's the problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I have made my preferences known but in the end I fully believe that this whole conversation is just burning time and effort because there is almost zero chance that Jimbo would ever allow it. In that light I have left a message on his talk page to please come and make a comment, although he has done so before, so that we can put this baby to bed. If he is willing to allow the discussing of how WP can allow for paid editors without compromising the integrity and status of the community then great. Otherwise we may as well do as the jedi say and "Move on, there is nothing to see here." --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Jimbo? Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He has vocally stated several times in the past that he is opposed to it and although he usually lets community concensus drive policy but allowing paid editors could have ramifications beyond simple editing including:

1. affecting the nonprofit status of WP and the WMF
2. loss of paid contributions by soe benefactors if paid editing is allowed
3. loss of editors who would no longer donate their time to a project that allowed paid editors
4. negative Press due to assumptions and arguments by the media.

So based on that and the potential affects it may have on WP, the WMF and on his business in general he would have the final say before something like this occurs. Wether he chooses to exercise it he does have the power to quash decisions that could affect the health of the project. IMO the items I mentioned above can be overcome if we plan and set policy accordingly. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the only problem is a philosphical one; "if I'm not being paid then nobody else should be paid either". But who knows, perhaps I am being paid for some of the stuff I write, who can tell? As you say BB, it's the quality of the product that ought to matter, not the motivations for its production. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, thanks to your attempts to squelch a productive discussion about a particular company and the actions of that company's employees here, you have inadvertently managed to turn this into a discussion about the general issue, which has even attracted opinions from some of the less thoughtful ANI regulars. Something to think about next time, perhaps. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of process deletions by User:DragonflySixtyseven

Today, basically by chance, I came across one of the pages deleted by admin User:DragonflySixtyseven with a pretty strange deletion summary. After looking up DS's deletion log for the last few days, it appears, at least on the surface, that this admin is engaged in persistent and systematic violations of the deletion process. My understanding of WP:DEL and is that when a particular page is deleted, the deletion summary needs to either give a link to a relevant XfD discussion or to specify an applicable CSD criterion or an expired prod. As far as I can tell, NONE of the deletions done by DS in the last few days satisfy this requirement. In some cases one could perhaps interpret some of his deletion summaries as implicitly applying a particular CSD criterion (e.g. for User:Davidkaluba the deletion summary is given as overly promotional, which could be read as CSD G11), but a great many of DS's deletions cannot be read even in this way. Here are a few examples from the last couple of days:

• Sidney Vien deleted with the deletion summary given as the usual. What the hey??
• Bradly T. Smith - again the usual
• User:Amanda.hernandez - deleted with the summary for user's own good. Excuse me! Which CSD criterion are you applying here? If not CSD, why was the page deleted without an MfD nomination??
• Talk:Kay One discography - deleted with the summary "not a forum". Again, that is not a valid CSD criterion and there was no AfD listing for the page (in fact the article itself still exists). In cases of soapboxing/discussion forum type posts at talk pages, those posts should be removed (and, in more extreme cases, REVDEL-ed). However, deleting the talk page itself is inappropriate under such circumstances: such a deletion also removes project tags and possibly useful page history of a given talk page.
• Salah Addin - deleted as unverifiable. What the heck??! If some CSD criterion was used here (but it is rather unclear which one it might have been), that criterion should have been specified; otherwise the article should have been AfDed or PRODDed. But a single admin deleting an entry with NO discussion as "unverifiable" is not an acceptable action.
• Zachariah Davis - deleted with the summary shoutout. What the hey??
• User:Nexco - deleted with the summary inappropriate use of userpage. Again, what is the deal here? Where is the MfD? If not, which CSD criterion was used?
• User:Elliott5290/Jesse Pequeno - also deleted with the summary inappropriate use of userpage.
• User:Shubhendu kumar tripathi - deleted with the summary the usual. What the heck??
• Talk:Hanumanapura - delete with summary not a forum.
• Talk:Jadoo TV - delete with the summary ‎ "attempt to communicate". What the hell??
• Talk:Dollywood Express - again deleted as "attempt to communicate".
• Talk:The Boy Who Never - ‎ again attempt to communicate
• Talk:Dual sovereignty doctrine - again ‎ "attempt to communicate"
• California Browngrass Music ‎ - delete with the summary "seems to be a neologism". I don't know what it "seemed" to DS, but if no CSD criterion was applicable, this should have been listed for an AfD, not deleted unilaterally, with no discussion.
• User:Karamegbarya - ‎ the usual
• User:Theamberandizzyshow ‎ - the usual
• James J. Lyons Jr. - deleted as ‎"inappropriate. Start over". What in the world does that mean??

And so on, many more like this. I cannot see the deleted articles/pages, but I think that, at the very least, the deletion summaries are quite inadequate, and, as it appears, quite a few of these pages should not have been deleted (such as various article talk pages) or should not have been deleted without an appropriate XfD discussion. In any event, I think some admin/admins need to take a look at the deletion log and see if some of this stuff needs to be restored. Given the large number of pages involved, I am bringing it here rather than at DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The deleted revisions of the first two and the second to last and third to last (the "the usual"s) have been oversighted, so there is probably a reason to use a nondescriptive deletion summary. The third one is an apparently 14-year-old writing about themselves (including date of birth, location, etc.) and is proper per WP:CHILD. No comments on the others. T. Canens (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know in the past I have deleted pages with inappropriate content (generally under WP:CHILD) with a vague edit summary, so as not to draw attention to it. Requests for oversight says "Delete or revert the relevant revision/s first (but only if it will not draw undue attention), which removes the material from public view until oversighted and stops it being perpetuated in future edits. Don't use words like "awaiting oversight". Use a generic description/edit summary." Although I don't want to put words into DF67's mouth, I can imagine a similar motive for at least some of these. I had a look at some of the deleted pages, and haven't seen anything egregious so far. Also, I was wondering if asking the editor about these deletions first might have been enlightening? --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. As I understand it, in cases where personal identifiable information is provided inappropriately, the appropriate standard option is REVDEL rather than page deletion. WP:CHILD is an essay, not a policy. While I personally think that it is an extremely bad idea for underage editors to provide personal identifiable information about themselves, I am not aware of actual policies or guidelines prohibiting such practices. In any event, more informative and precise deletion summaries need to be provided as a rule, particularly for dealing with the situations where a given page is re-created. I could understand when an admin occasionally uses oblique and non-standard deletion summaries, but here essentially all deletion summaries (for all deletions, not just the ones I listed above) are of this nature. That is not appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Disclosure of non-public personal information has been an oversight criterion for a very long time (it is actually the first oversight criterion developed); in the case of minors, even if self-disclosed, this has been standard since review of tool use was carried out once suppression tools became available. An admin can revdelete them, preferably with a relatively vague summary, and then notify an oversighter to do the rest. As one of the oversighters DragonflySixtyseven notifies of such pages on a regular basis, I can say that he is correct in such actions about 98% of the time (that is, that the edit/page meets oversight criteria); those that don't will meet revdelete criteria. In the past 18 months, I don't think I've once had to undelete any of his actions in this area, which is a pretty remarkable record given the fact that he is one of the very, very few users who reviews new non-article pages. Risker (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify deletions marked as "attempt to communicate" - this is a valid criteria under A3 which includes "attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title". It probably should be linked by the admin when deleting via the drop down, but this would be the reason behind those on the list. Camw (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know DF67 does a lot of digging for BLP violations so I'd guess the first two ("the usual") were flagrant BLP vios, especially if they've been oversighted. I haven't got time to check the rest at the moment, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Kay One discography - consists of a single deleted edit that reads, in its entirety, "Berlins most wanted kollabo album".
• Zachariah Davis - consists of the single word "stud".
• User:Nexco - is an advert from a company.
• User:Elliott5290/Jesse Pequeno - I'm not sure what this is. Seems to be some nonsense and is probably G1-able.
• User:Shubhendu kumar tripathi - Again, oversighted revision.
• Talk:Hanumanapura - consists of a long essay from a single user that has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever.
• Talk:Jadoo TV - "IF SOME ONE KNOW HOW IS THE MANUFACTURER PLEASE LET ME KNOW OR SEND ME THE MAIL WHO IS MANUFACTURER OF THIS JADOO BOX."
• Talk:Dollywood Express - "BOAT Hill2010-Whistle DOLLYWOODEXPRESS#192"
• Talk:The Boy Who Never - "Don't delete this. I found something I needed so it is useful". Oddly enough, as far as I can see that article has never been tagged for deletion.
• Talk:Dual sovereignty doctrine - "Galloway 9th Grade Poli-Sci. You are here because you didn't do your homework last night. Sucks to be you."

IMO all the talk pages listed above are deletable under G6. There is nothing useful in the history (project banners or whatever). That leaves:

• Salah Addin
• California Browngrass Music
• James J. Lyons Jr.

I can see why those were deleted, but yes, these three appear to be out of process. T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into these. My main point is that we should not have to engage in mind-reading. If a particular CSD criterion is used (such as G1 or G6), it needs to be specified explicitly by the deleting admin rather than by an oblique the usual or something equally cryptic. This is necessary both in the case where a page deletion is being contested at DRV and if a page is re-created later. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nsk92, did you ask DragonflySixtyseven about these deletions? I'm not seeing your question on his talk page, unless you did it by e-mail? I'm also slightly concerned that "OMG bad deletion summaries" is a far less important question that "were the deletions reasonable". In my experience, Df67 does a lot of excellent BLP checking. I really don't want us to be more concerned with him ticking the boxes, than with the dreadful BLPs he often removes for us. Is there evidence that, in using the wide admin discretion on BLPs, that he's behaving unreasonable? Again Nsk92 before coming to this "process-driven drama-board" did you do any research or speak to this very approachable admin?--Scott Mac 14:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• • No, I did not speak to DS first, primarily because all of the deletion log summaries appeared to be non-standard rather than just a few. Like I said, using an occasional oblique/non-standard deletion summary is fine, but doing it all the time is not acceptable, whatever the motives are. This is 2010, not 2003, and wild west cowboy approach to the deletion process is not an acceptable option. We do have a well developed deletion process (PROD, AfD, CSD, DRV, etc) for a reason. In particular, it allows for orderly challenges to deletions and lets everybody (not just the admin who deleted the page) understand what happened and why it was deleted. It also makes it easier to spot a bad deletion where an incorrect call was made. It is not too much to ask for the admins to provide (with a few exceptions) clear and precise deletion summaries. In fact, as far as I know, every other admin does provide such precise summaries and I have never seem a deletion log like that of DS. Nsk92 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:DEL is flawed, although I'm perfectly willing to grant that you have the best of intentions. Process is important, yes, but it is not all-important. I'll give you a brief summary of some of my custom deletion rationales.

1. "Attempt to communicate" = using a talk page as an attempt to communicate with the subject of that talkpage.
2. "For user's own good" = this is material which, I judge, would very soon come back to haunt that user (who has most likely left Wikipedia after 10 minutes of giggling on userspace) and could potentially ruin their life - the sort of material which OTRS would get e-mails about, asking that it please please be taken down from wikimirrors (which of course we can't do). Any user who disagrees with me about my judgment of something as being 'for their own good' is welcome to argue the point with me and restore the material in question. Mostly it's teenagers who're not quite young enough to be covered by WP:CHILD, but who're being quite foolish anyway.
3. "Not a forum" - talkpages are not to be used as forums for general discussion of the subject, otherwise <talk:Popular Movie In Franchise> would be full of people speculating about the next movie, etc. A talkpage which does not pertain to the article itself gets deleted. If there's any useful history, I let the whole thing stay, but a talkpage for Teen Celebrity that says "Teen Celebrity is so attractive", or a talkpage for Popular Band that says "I loved their last album", and nothing else... no. It sets a bad precedent. I could create boilerplate talkpages to replace the wholly inappropriate material, but I'm not obliged to. If you want boilerplate talkpages there, you do it.
4. "Inappropriate. Start over." - this particular one began as an election ad urging that people vote for Mr Lyons. Eventually, the fact that Mr Lyons won was added to the article, at the very end. This is inappropriate. A genuine article can be written about Mr Lyons -- since he won, he meets notability criteria -- but it will have to be done from scratch. The contributor will have to start over.
5. "Shoutout" - 'hey my buddy ALVIN FAKENAME IN MISTER WURLITZER'S ENGLISH CLASS I'M SAYING HI TO YOU!!! HI ALVIN HI HI HI! ISN'T THIS COOL!", or similarl material that exists solely to put someone's name in Wikipedia. Have you really never heard the phrase "give a shout-out to" ?
6. "Seems to be a neologism" - go read Wikipedia:MADEUP. That doesn't quite cover this: Google indicates that the phrase exists separately from Wikipedia. Let's see, there's.... lots of wikimirrors and content scrapers, and... uh... ah, one mention of a performer saying that this is what he calls his music style, and... oh, Henry Rollins mentioned it on the radio, once - when saying that the aforementioned performer "sent me a free copy of his CD".
7. "Inappropriate use of userpage" - these are mostly promotional things for businesses, bands, low-level political candidates. Sometimes it's clubs attempting to use Wikipedia as a free webhost. Go read these guidelines; I'm quite careful about applying them.
8. "Unverifiable" is a less hostile way of saying "blatant hoax".

Incidentally, I'm probably going to have to revdel the earlier version of this section, specifically because you've drawn attention to a lot of material that has been oversighted. DS (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The process is not all-important but it is quite important, particularly given that this is 2010, not 2003. It may very well be that in each of the above cases there was a perfectly applicable CSD criterion. In that case you should have specified that criterion directly, just like all other admins do. Why aren't you doing that? Specifying a particular CSD criterion (and in fact making it clear that a page was deleted under CSD provisions rather than for some other reason) makes it much more clear to everybody (the page's creator and other users looking at the log) why a given page was deleted and allows for an orderly way of appealing a deletion. It also gives much better guidance to the user(s) who created the page than a cryptic "as usual"; when a specific CSD criterion is specified, the page creator will know precisely what was wrong, without having to guess or ask, and it makes it easier for that user to create a better page, avoiding the problems that the old page had. This is particularly helpful for new users. Nsk92 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as a point; there is no requirement in any of the guidelines or policy to include the CSD criteria/link (in fact, I can't see it even advised anywhere). Other admins do it, possibly, because Twinkle fills it in for them (just a guess...) in that format. Nsk92, you could have had this discussion on the users talk page - bringing it here straight off bat when nothing wrong appears to have occurred is disappointing to see. If your advice is for DragonflySixtyseven to link to CSD criteria, sure, why not suggest it to him. But if this is to be required I think you'll have to open a discussion on the admin deletion process page. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I spoke to him about the reason I use the codes in 2007, when he approached me to tell me that he thought I was not being rigorous enough in my speedies. I have a pretty poor memory, but I was so startled by his telling me that "You don't have to use the code-numbers in the Speedy criteria - I suggest you read my deletion log to see some example rationales" that I've never forgotten it. :) Using them just seemed to me like obviously a good idea, and I guess I still think so. Because it stood out in my mind, this note at Dcoetzee's talk page also caught my eye in 2009. User:Dcoetzee asked him to use the codes at that time, but I don't know if there was ever any response. User:DragonflySixtyseven does a lot of good work, I know, but I would really encourage him to consider using the pulldown menu on speedies so that everyone can see that the articles are deleted under valid rationale...including the article creators who can follow the links and read the criteria as Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? advises them to do. It's easy, and there are good reasons for doing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nsk92, did you raise this question with DragonflySixtyseven before coming here? Your only edits to their talkpage appear to be the AN notice to this discussion, and an unrelated complaint two years ago. On cursory examination, I would endorse each of these deletions at DRV, often for being irretrievably promotional. It seems that DragonflySixtyseven, except in the oversight cases mentioned above, is giving rationales fully in line with the CSD criteria. I do not think that it is required to link the criteria in the deletion summary so long as the reasoning is clear; arguably, providing custom reasons (again excepting vagueness pending oversight) shows greater depth of consideration than simply clicking the drop box. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is very much the norm and is expected for the deleting admin to provide a precise deletion summary (with rare exceptions), with a specific CSD criterion (or at least explaining clearly that a page is being deleted per CSD and not on some other grounds). As far as I know, everybody else does that. Like I said, I have never seen a deletion log like that of DS. Let me repeat the basic reasons for specifying a precise CSD criterion in the deletion summary:

• It lets the page-creator and other users looking at the log know more precisely what happened and why a page was deleted. This helps both with the appeal process at DRV and with creating a better version of the deleted page that avoids the problems that the deleted page had (this is particularly helpful for new users).
• It reduces the likelihood of making a mistake. Speedy deletion is a high precision process and should not be used lightly. For non-CSD cases we have various XfD venues where a discussion rather than a fast judgement by a single admin are necessary. In many cases a page that, in the opinion of a given admin, strongly deserves deletion, does not qualify for CSD. In such cases, the admin, no matter how strong his/her feelings are about the page, should not delete it outright but list it for an appropriate XfD. Giving a specific CSD criterion in the deletion summary forces the deleting admin to think more carefully and precisely about a particular page and helps to make a better decision about whether to delete the page under a CSD rubric or to list it for XfD. Nsk92 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nsk92, you're fighting the windmills here. Prominent ArbCom members have decided that in the name of the greater good, less transparency is better in some administrative areas. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe ArbCom (or its individual "prominent members") has the authority to re-define deletion policy. In any event, while I understand that there are some narrow sets of circumstances (e.g. related to oversight) where an oblique deletion summary is necessary and acceptable, this does not mean that it is acceptable to disregard the standard deletion practices in all cases. It is overwhelmingly the norm and the standard for all admins to specify which CSD criterion they are deleting a particular page under. If everybody else follows this practice, why doesn't DS? In DS' case, the relevant CSD criteria are never specified in deletion summaries and in fact the summaries do not even make it clear if a page was deleted under CSD provisions at all or if it was deleted on some other grounds. That's not acceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there, Arbcom has nothing to do with this, and the person who seems to be trying to redefine the deletion policy, making use of ambiguous dropdown "reasons" mandatory, is you. There is not a requirement to use them (please see WP:BURO), they are often less useful than a specific deletion reason, and if your desire is to try to obtain community consensus to require their use, the place to do so is as an RFC on the talk page of the applicable policy, not this noticeboard. No policy has been violated. If people have issues with individual deletions, they know where DRV is, they know where the administrator's talk page is, and that is where they should be addressed. Perhaps of more value than having any of those discussions, though, would be for everyone in this thread to go and spend a couple of hours doing new page patrol (starting from the oldest unpatrolled articles and not skipping the other pages, where BLP violations are frequently identified) so that the burden of making all these decisions would not rest on the tiny number of administrators and editors who invest time in doing the new page patroll that improves the project rather than worrying that the right paperwork has not been done. Risker (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. I was not the one who brought up ArbCom - I was responding to a somewhat cryptic comment of Tijfo098 who first mentioned ArbCom. And I am not inventing any policy here. It already is the overwhelmingly followed standard to specify the deletion reason as one of CSD/XFD/PROD. As far as I know, basically all other admins involved in deletion follow this practice as a matter of routine. Moreover Wikipedia:Deletion process does not list any other acceptable rubrics for deletion apart from CSD/XfD/PROD. Regarding DRV, one of my basic points is that in order to even bring a particular deletion to DRV one needs to know under which rubric (CSD/XfD/PROD) a particular page was deleted under, as there are different rules for appealing deletions under these different rubrics. For CSD/XfD/PROD there are well-defined standards and conventions for how they work and how to appeal them. If one just starts doing some sort of "general" deletions that are neither CSD nor XfD nor PROD, then we are back to the wild west era of 2002-2003, when IAR was the only rule. But Wikipedia is too big now for a wild west approach to work well. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that any of Salah Addin, California Browngrass Music and James J. Lyons Jr. would have survived AFD, and if the first is a hoax then far enough, but all three of these were deleted without informing the author, in two cases the author still has a redlinked talkpage and the third was redlinked until after they had queried the deletion. California Browngrass Music in particular reads to me as a goodfaith contribution, unreferenced and possible OR but not something to speedy and definitely not to be deleted without informing the author. ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a good point about notifications. I did not look into that earlier because I could not view the deleted pages and did not know who the page-creators were, but looking at DS' contrib record, I don't see any CSD notifications - so it appears that DS simply never informs the page's creator while performing a CSDesque deletion. With things like blatant hoaxes, patent nonsense, vandalism etc, I can see that it is OK to forgo notifications, but for G11 (blatant advertisement) and A7 cases notofications are certainly in order. Such pages are often created by good-faith inexperienced users unfamiliar with WP standards. Given a chance, many of these articles may be salvageable. Also, could someone check Ibrahim El Refai? It was deleted with the summary completely unreferenced. I am not sure what that one might have been eligible under - perhaps A7 or G3 (blatant hoax), but the explanation completely unreferenced is inadequate in any case. I don't know if this page was a BLP, but even for BLPs with no references with have a BLP-prod rather than summary deletion on the spot. Nsk92 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a contested CSD tagged by someone else, a coatrack article about a supposed top secret elite commando battalion, and very likely a hoax. The subject supposedly died 30+ years ago, so not a BLP. In this case, he was the closing admin, and would not be required to make any notifications. Your request for further information about the deletion is entirely appropriate...but it should be addressed to the deleting administrator, not to this noticeboard. Risker (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the non-admins in the house: the speedy tag had been removed by User:Phil Bridger. Typically, we don't have closing admins when speedies are challenged by removal of the tag by somebody other than the creator; they are instead taken to AfD (per WP:DP). There are occasions when speedy deletion criteria clearly apply in spite of such tag removals, but the deletion summary isn't clear which criteria applied. We generally don't speedily delete articles as "completely unreferenced", largely because there is no provision for doing so in policy. We can delete clear hoaxes, but I think it's a better idea to say so in deletion summary. It can help avoid giving the sense that administrators have some extra authority to delete content outside of community-derived policy. (Nonadmins can still see the article as it existed here.) I would agree with User:Risker that there should have been conversation with User:DragonflySixtyseven over these matters, but there may well be need to discuss greater clarity in deletion summaries as a general practice at WT:CSD or WT:DP. Paperwork isn't all superfluous. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Risker: thanks for looking into Ibrahim El Refai. Based on what you say, the deletion should have been marked as G3 (blatant hoax) - then at least it would have been clear what happened. However, based on what Moonriddengirl writes above, it sounds like the speedy tag was contested (by Phil Bridger). After that happened, the article should have been sent to AfD, rather than summarily deleted. In fact, DS' deletion summary does not even make it clear if the deletion was done under WP:CSD. Regarding your last point: if it was just one article, I would certainly have simply asked the deleting admin directly. In this case there is a truck-load (looks like hundreds) of articles with inadequate deletion summaries; that's why I brought this matter here. Let me also stress another point: there is no way to appeal at DRV anything other than a deletion under CSD/XfD; plus there is a WP:REFUND for contested prods. And, as I noted above, Wikipedia:Deletion process does not list any other acceptable rubrics for deletion apart from CSD/XfD/PROD. The same is true for WP:DEL: in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes it lists CSD, XfD, PROD and copyvios (which procedurally is basically a part of CSD) as acceptable deletion processes and it does not mention any others. So my understanding is that both according to the policy and according to the overwhelmingly accepted convention, every proper deletion must be one of CSD, XfD, PROD. It is not too much to ask that admins clearly specify under which rubric of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes they are deleting a particular page. Everybody else (including you) seems to be doing this. Why doesn't DS? Nsk92 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if you think an administrator is habitually doing things wrong, it's still a good idea to begin by discussing it with him. He may see your point and change his approach; he may not. But it's a courtesy that's well worth taking time for, since it help keeps the project running as smoothly as possible without unnecessary uproar. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to have this conversation move elsewhere. But one of the three examples I gave had been tagged for speedy deletion and the tag declined, the other two had not been tagged. I accept that if an admin is deleting articles tagged by others then they aren't necessarily going to notice if the tagger has failed to notify the author. But if an admin speedy deletes without an article being already tagged then they are the one who should be notifying the author, when as in some of these cases that author is a goodfaith newbie then I'm uncomfortable if the author just has their article disappear. ϢereSpielChequers 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note, I've opened a discussion at the deletion policy talk page. Please, let's keep that thread specific to the general question. I'm really hoping we can avoid getting distracted by questions of whose deletion summaries are really good and whose could use improvement. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to change my behaviors if I agree that there's something wrong: for instance, a while back I was deleting test pages with the simple rationale 'test'; it was pointed out to me that this can misleadingly imply that it was a test deletion instead of a test page. So now I actually say 'test page'. If you can convince me that I'm doing something wrong, I'll change it. DS (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DS, let me explain again what I'd like to see you change in your practices. When you delete a page under WP:CSD, mention explicitly in the deletion summary that the deletion is done based on WP:CSD and mention the specific criterion being used. E.g. for a test page, mention G2; for blatant advertising, mention G11; for a hoax/vandalism, mention G3; etc. That way it will be clear to everyone looking at the deletion log exactly what happened. In addition, if a page is deleted under CSD (that is not after an expired prod or a closed XfD), it is customary to notify the page's creator, at least after the fact. In cases of vandalism/patent nonsense such a notification is not really necessary but for most other CSD cases it is more than just a pro forma requirement. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just one comment: Nsk92 is correct that this isn't 2003. Wikipedia is immensely much more popular now that it ever was, and as a result (as with any other major website today such as YouTube or Facebook), you are going to get people from the general public who are not going to have a clue about what Wikipedia is or how it works, or are otherwise, I hate to say it, morons (looks at the bored schoolkids or teenagers who surf and troll on the Internet without any parental supervision whatsoever). Combine that with a completely (for the most part) free-to-edit website and "OMG I can write whatever I want OMG! OMG! OMG! LOLOLOLOLOLLLLOL!", you're going to get a lot of crap in which DS67 deletes on a regular basis, as do I sometimes. Many of them do not know better, and I'd argue that does not need to haunt them for the rest of their days when they move on to (hopefully) bigger and better things. –MuZemike 20:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so most people seem to agree that (a) DS's work as an admin and oversighter is appreciated, (b) most of these deletions are OK but the reason for them should have been made more clear, (c) it would have been better to first ask DS directly before raising this here. But I'm still not clear about which process- or policy-based reason allows the speedy deletion of Salah Addin, California Browngrass Music and James J. Lyons Jr.. DS, if you could comment on that, we might avoid having to drag these through DRV.  Sandstein  22:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Without being glib: WP:IAR? DS is an extremely accomplished deletion admin - as such it seems reasonable to trust him to use IAR in the context of deletion with common sense, and leave the project the better for it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(off topic) Agreeing with most of your above Sandstein, however exactly why do you think we need to "drag them through DRV"? Your dogmatic approach to WP is starting to get a little depressing, to say the least. My view is that you seem to think that "It wasn't deleted right so we'd better all pile on some more bureaucracy and delete it right". How very odd. Contest it over content not process. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that some good communication here could avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, in case the authors or others want the articles back, and might have avoided this discussion in the first place.  Sandstein  23:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DS Would you be willing to inform the authors and explain why you have deleted their articles when you delete goodfaith articles such as Salah Addin, California Browngrass Music and James J. Lyons Jr.? ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but a trip through the reference at browngrass, might be enlightening for that at least. But the other two: salah looks like a slightly biased stub, and JJL looks a touch like self-promo. Though I'll admit to not having researched them much more thoroughly than looking at the deleted revisions,

That said, I'm not thrilled with the idea of calling someone before the community, listing a bunch of deletions not understood, only to find out that the majority were proper. Anyway, at this point, with so few that seem worth discussing, wouldn't the admin's talk page be the better venue at this point? - jc37 00:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy who wrote the article on Mr Lyons asked what he did wrong several days ago, and I carefully and politely explained to him how he can do a better job. If the other users actually come back to Wikipedia and ask what happened to their articles, then I will be pleased to explain. But I'm quite busy dealing with enormous backlogs that no one else seems to be interested in handling. DS (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, people are going to complain when backlog get dealt with, to the point in which they claim any effort to do so is disruptive; my guess is that attempts to deal with backlogs put many people out of their comfort zones. It's like what was said in The Shawshank Redemption – they "are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. After long enough, you get so you depend on 'em." –MuZemike 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here between discomfort over addressing backlogs with discomfort over the methods used in addressing backlogs. I also put a lot of time into addressing enormous backlogs, but still believe that clarity in communication is helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Given that the admin interface makes it so simple to select a reason from the drop-down menu I must say I'm perplexed as to why an admin would instead opt to chronically write brief, vague descriptions instead. Whether the deletions were done properly or not I do think it is important in the vast majority of cases to provide a clear, policy based reason for a deletion. While pretty much every admin does this once in a while, it should not be the default procedure, and "the usual" is so unhelpful that even leaving it blank would be better. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a comment on the overall comments. My understanding of summaries is to inform *anyone* who comes across them why whatever is being looked at is not there. Without pointing to any specific example I can say it is more helpful to come across a deleted page/file and have a link to a deletion discussion or a policy that lead to the deletion rather than a non descriptor in an edit summary. (And by that I mean to someone not involved needs to be able to see past the deleting admins inner mind) Admins can actually look behind the scenes - not everyone else can. This goes two ways - If an article, or file, has been previously deleted its deletion history will show up after the fact, viewable by everyone. Prior to that only admins can see it. If "Joe Normal" finds a page that meets A7 and tags it as such it might be confusing at first if an admin deleted it as G4. Think of the reverse as it applies to this topic. "Joe Normal" creates an article and others work on it only to find it deleted with "stupid" as the edit summary - what does that mean? Was the article stupid? Is "Joe Normal" stupid? Is anyone else who worked on the article "stupid"? Only those who are admins could look at the deleted article and say "Oh, it was done as an A1" So in this case, at least in my eyes, it is not that someone is looking into edit summaries "only to find out that the majority were proper", it is that a more clear edit summary should have been given. Also it was mentioned that anyone can remove tags, which is also a secondary issue - if a deletion tag is removed for any reason there should be a clear policy based reason why, more so if it is an admin doing it as part of an "official" action. The biggest difference is that if it is only a tag that is removed anybody can go through and see what the tag was, why it might have been placed, and what the edit summary may have meant if it was too vauge. As I said, once something is deleted only admins can find out what it was that was deleted, why it was tagged, and if the deletion summary actually reflects "‎the usual." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part IX

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

for letting File:Leptecophylla juniperina 2.jpg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we really up to IX already? How long did it take us to get there? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Its probably somewhere between XII and XV I just dont post every time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the bot that was supposed to be dealing with this? --Chris 06:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the change of procedure that was suppose to deal with this? Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism from Vietnam

I have found two pages that have a bunch of IPs from Vietnam reverting stuff [11] and [12]. Both pages are currently semi protected. Not sure if anything further need doing to prevent further problems? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll find more from the same user(s) at Screw, Vignette (road tax), Template:Command & Conquer series, and various pages about Fallout (video game), as well as a number of other random pages. It's quite likely the origin is an open proxy on the network, but it's a fairly big network to rangeblock. Liberal semi-protection of the main target pages is probably the way to go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lorielpid regarding the above. RashersTierney (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked proxy problem

At User talk:Bowen9314 there is an unblock request relating to an open proxy which has been blocked since July 2007. I don't know much about open proxies, so I wonder if someone who does can deal with this. I was tempted to grant the user IP block exemption, but thought it better to ask for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, IP unblocked. Requests like this are often stale and excessively long blocks of dynamic IPs, and in such cases even if you grant IPBE, please list the IP somewhere like here or WP:OP so it can be rechecked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing noticeboard

I've marked the noticeboard in question as proposed, since the policy / guideline behind it is proposed. Also, any issues that may be brought up there would be better dealt with at the conflict of interest noticeboard, which is much more active and has more people monitoring it. Regarding the noticeboard now, should we remove all posts there and place it in an archive? Or should the noticeboard be allowed to continue to function despite the guideline behind it being only proposed? Netalarm^talk 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections: voting now open

Voting is now open in the November-December 2010 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. Voting will be conducted using the Securepoll extension and will close on Sunday 5 December 2010 at 23:59 (UTC).

In order to be eligible to vote, an account must have had made at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2010 (check your account). Blocked editors may not vote, and voting with multiple accounts or bot accounts is expressly forbidden. Note that due to technical restrictions, editors who have made more than 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 but no longer have access to the account(s) used will not be able to vote. If you have any questions about this, please ask on the election talkpage.

For each candidate, voters may choose to Support or Oppose the candidacy, or to remain Neutral (this option has no effect on the outcome). Voting must be done in a single sitting, with a verdict made on every candidate. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote), as your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the time of acceptance of your votes at the real-time voting log. Although this election will use secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, voters are invited to question and discuss the candidates throughout the election.

To cast your vote, please proceed here.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U about user:WeijiBaikeBianji

I recently started an RFC/U about this user’s conduct on a group of articles covered by a recent arbitration case. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WeijiBaikeBianji

Few people have commented there so far, possibly because of Thanksgiving, so more comments from uninvolved admins would be appreciated.-SightWatcher (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the account of the user above is currently being investigated by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)