Talk:PayPal/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

Problems with editors

It seems changes made to this article are immediately reverted for no good reason. I suggest something be done and will be suggesting that to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.232.46.151 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) www.imagination.vg ~http://www.imagination.vg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.129.220 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV dispute [Safety & Protection Policies]"

Who is it deleating all of my postings in there ? no rule violation fund, at least not in all of my sentences deleted alltogether ! ?

In the second paragraph it sound more like a personal opinion, if it is you may want to quote part of that paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ntt ng (talkcontribs) 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Third paragraph "The company—by its own admission—uses automated systems to verify tracking numbers." I was not able to find where the company says that if the seller does not enter the correct tracking number, the seller will loose the claim without having a human being look at it. Ntt ng 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

This can be found in the statement "of a former employee" as found on www.screw-paypal.com and other sites. Accounts are frozen by authomatics algorithms /like used in banking institutes" but adjusted more sharp. The software is called Ivan and Irena. The former paypal-employee states that there is onel ONE PERSON deciding about account un-freezement fpr the whole uS:

This also fits the Ebay logistics where only very few persons are allowed to make decisions but follow up helpdesk guidelines also for the employees. I don't see the sources of the criticism about the policies. Ntt ng 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PayPal Security Key

Is the recent addition of the PayPal Security Key Physical Device worth mentioning?Toolofthesystem 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why do you ask? --Elvey 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"See also"

I've removed the entire "See also" system. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory; though such a list might be appropriate for an article about online payment systems, none of the sites listed there are about PayPal (except for paypalsucks.com, and we don't link to attack sites, and the article about it is worthless.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

PayPal Targets Online Games

This happens cause any potentially illegal account gets frozen (paypal encashing interrst and fees then, in some of the cases just the amount in total until state authorities claim it- if ever noticed...) and paypal employees can have options and assets in paypal- so every frozen account increases their personal stock options/ shares value. Closed circuit.

PayPal just threatened to cut off Gaia Online's donation services because of it's casino minigames... keep in mind that the only thing people donate to Gaia for is Donation Items. NOT Casino Tokens (which have to be bought with ordinary virtual gold), nor the Casino Tickets used to buy more virtual items.

Gaia's not a gambling site, it's a forum with a casino-style minigame tacked on. They may as well attack Microsoft because there's a way to play Solitaire 'Vegas' style.Veled 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Got a URL for this? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I added it. 68.13.99.150 22:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, from the link, it appears to be a done deal. Why is this under "criticism"? Even the link you provide isn't complaining about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

CAPTCHA

OK, this article claims PayPal started them; CAPTCHA claims it was AltaVista. Which? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


FEES!

I think someone should post the fee table for PayPal Business/Premier users ... I can't believe it isnt already up... if I remember correctly its 2.9% + 0.30$...and it changes if you recieve more money each month.

--Gautam3 05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That's really the kind of thing best suited by simply pointing to PayPal's own site. We'd have to take it all from there anyway, and anyone who might want to use it would want to look there (where it's authoritative) rather than here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

we definitely need to link to pages like www.paypalwarning.com and paypalsucks.com. they have true stories of users who have been duped by the illegal bank of paypal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oracle21 (talkcontribs) 01:18, October 22, 2006

  • The editor who put in stuff like "corrupt and evil" in the introduction to the article needs to learn about WP:NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are legit complaints on that site.
    • Perhaps, but it's still an attack site, and we don't include attack sites. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The fee system is very complex:

  • Different fees apply for different currencies.
  • Different fees apply depending on the country of the sender and the recepient.
  • Different fees apply for withdrawing funds depending on the withdrawal method, the amount to be withdrawn and the country to which you wish to withdraw the money.

Additionally, the fee system changes constantly.

It thus seems better to link to PayPal's site instead. (212.247.11.153 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Clarification/Explanation

This article needs more explanation on the process of using paypal.

Is it that: You verify your bank account with Paypal, then transfer funds to it and Paypal pays the sellers? And doing it electronically through paypal is faster (after you have funds transferred in it) than going through paypal with a credit/debit card (which would take a few days to process)?

Also, the difference between Paypal's electronic funds, debit card, and credit card use needs to be explained. I don't see on the site anything about debit cards and their use. Can the debit card be used as a credit card? --70.111.218.254 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

paypal criticism

I was pointed out that "frozen accounts" is regarded as a problem with paynet - and googled a bit around it.

I came over the website paypalsucks.com - which particularly critices paypal for:

  • having unfair Terms of Service
  • having an understaffed customer support department
  • frozen account problem. It seems like PayPal automatically closes accounts (and funds!) on suspicions of fraud. Innocent people get their accounts frozen from time to time, and when this happens, it is very difficult to get ones money back.
  • customers are beeing "ripped off", chargeback risk and credit card fees are beeing used as an argument for having high charges on transactions - but those charges are applied to any transactions, regardless of whether it's credit card transactions or not.

I suppose at least the frozen accounts problem, plus a link to the paypalsucks site would be appropriate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.242.203 (talkcontribs)

this site has been covered numerous times. Please read the archives, and no it isn't appropriate.--Crossmr 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Paypalsucks.com does not represent a neutral point of view, articles should be base in facts with proof and referencesNtt ng 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

"Paypal also charged Wikipedia Foundation more than $46k in charges in 2006, an unconscienable act as Wikipedia is a non-profit service to the world."

I saw someone added that line, "Paypal also charged Wikipedia Foundation more than $46k in charges in 2006, an unconscienable act as Wikipedia is a non-profit service to the world." It is unsourced. I would love to find a source on that, even something on Wikipedia. Would anyone know anything for hints? Please. Thank you. DyslexicEditor 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure. Just look at the Wikimedia financial statement. The statement does not, however, describe it as unconscionable, whether spelled correctly or not. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because PayPal forced Wikimedia to take them as a form of payment. Wikibofh(talk) 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the $46k statement is clearly true but I disagree with the unconscionable part. It is clearly unsourced POV. $46k is reasonable considering that there is no public electronic payment system in the vast majority of countries. All private electronic payment systems have always charged transaction fees, since the huge numbers of programmers and engineers who create such systems do not work for free. --Coolcaesar 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That $46K would likely be the standard Paypal fee for processing something on the order of two million dollars worth of donations. I'd be willing to bet that at least 2% of those donations happened because PayPal was available -- the service reduces charitable giving to "click click click", and some of us are remarkably lazy. Well, I am...I know that if I can use PayPal I'm more likely to donate a small amount, the bread-and-butter $20 sort of donations that are the lifeblood of many non-profits nowadays. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Paypal Criticism and Criticism Links

  • I went to see why Paypal criticism links were delted and found this in the log. "because they're not at all good sites". That is your opinion, others like myself think they are great sites.

13:53, 15 August 2006 Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) (→Why are the critical sites being deleted? - because they're not at all good sites). Jpgordon is or was a programmer at eBay (which owns paypal) and continues to delete information that is critcal of paypal. Please do not delete information that is critical of paypal. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV Router 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No links to attack sites. That's it. We've discussed that here repeatedly. Consensus has been consistent about that throughout Wikipedia, and has been backed up by ArbCom decisions. See the archives of this talk page for more. Feel free to actually include well-sourced, verifiable criticisms of PayPal; simply linking to sucks.com sites isn't within policy --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Three critical sites were identified as OK to post "a small number of relevant links" Posting Critical Sites Router 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And if you can change the ArbCom ruling that attack sites do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia except, perhaps, in articles about those attack sites, they can be included here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Everything I have seen supports criticism and links to it. Please provide explicit link here to ArbCom decision and support for your comment which states, "ArbCom ruling that attack sites do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia..." . Router 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You are reading this out of context. You need to read the whole article to understand what is considered an attack site. This case is about "attack sites" which "purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Wikipedia administrators and editors." Not sites that are critical of a company or government body. See Outing sites as attack sites Router 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Feel free to bring that issue up in the appropriate forum. If you think something like "fuckpaypal.net" isn't an attack site, you need to convince ArbCom of it. I'll recuse from the case, certainly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The case you cite is one about attacking a persons identity, not criticising a company. Router 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Doesn't matter. The phrase is "attack sites"; it is true that the particular attack sites are about attacking individuals in that case, but the principle is not limited to those. Anyway, I give up; someone else less involved will come around and do exactly the same thing, I imagine. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WP:EL and WP:RS is the basis for the removal of this site. Do not re-add it. Syrthiss 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The external links need to be balanced. Add some criticism keeps it neutral. See Undue Weight This is the reason I am keeping it in. Router 17:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism would be perfectly acceptable if it was published in a reliable source. A BBC or CNN article about Paypal fraud or something along those lines would be reasonable. A site that simply lists complaints that people have made is not acceptable because there is no way to verify that the information provided is accurate. 74.114.148.69 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism would be perfectly acceptable if it was published in a reliable source." And not just a "reliable" source, but, indeed, a journalistic, scholastic or other legitimate Secondary Source (per WP: NOR). As for the attack sites, it would be relevant to make links to news sources which document a PayPalSucks.com (for example), but it is questionable whether to put a link to the site itself on here. It is germane to the topic at hand, which is PayPal, it does represent a significant problem with the processing, but it is, after all, a fringe voice. So, I think a fair compromise would be to add a link to a second-source website accounting for PayPal's problems with payment processing and which may bring up an "attack" site, link to the PayPalSucks.com wikipedia page (because it is relevant) and to address what major criticisms have been brought up in secondary sources (which is already done.) I don't think I've said anything new, but that's my thought on it, anyway. -Bordello 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why has the Criticism section been deleted and replaced by Accolades? I had posted a valid, constructive criticism. I sell products on line, and whenever somebody orders several products by Paypal, only the first 100 characters come through. The rest of the lines are lost, and if the person can't remember their whole order, we have to improvise, which is an uncompensated waste of our time. Wouldn't it be easier for Paypal to fix this ridiculous glitch, rather than having their minions suppress justified criticism which could improve their operation?

I found one reference to this problem on the web at http://forums.oscommerce.com/lofiversion/index.php?t179917-650.html. It says, "If you have a number of separate items in the order it may truncate the end of the list."

Bring back the Criticism section, or if that can't be done, at least delete the Accolades, so we can have neutrality.

Like this, it's not neutrality, it's puffery. JPLeonard 19:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. We cannot have a criticism section based on unreliable sources. I had thought there were some reliable sources previously though, but that one is certainly not a reliable source.--Crossmr 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe my customer is a reliable source. He just wrote me

"I can't supply additional details; I don't remember all the books and dvds I ordered. Can you cancel the order and I will redo, either using a credit card if the website allows, or else ordering one item at a time."

What a pain in the neck! And all the wise guys at Wikipedia can do is give themselves airs about it, like i was imagining it or something.

I am going to keep posting this criticism every time it happens. But what good does that do me. It is so frustrating. These are my best customers, who order several items. And this order it looks like I am going to lose business coz of stupid Paypal.

And how about the other valid criticisms, like if you try to access your Paypal account while you're overseas, they freeze your account?

Is Paypal financially supporting Wikipedia or something to be above criticism?

The forum I cited is a Paypal technical forum called Official PayPal IPN Support Thread. What would be a more reliable source on the issue?

No, unless your customers issue has been published by a reliable source, no. A more reliable source is an article in a reputable magazine, newspaper, or online variant there of. Self-published sources like blogs, forums, fan sites, etc. Anyone can write whatever they want in a forum and hence its not usable as citation.--Crossmr 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, the "Accolades" section was pure puffery, so I zapped it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the site paypalsucks.com which keeps being inserted, it is not actually a real criticism site. If you click on links within that site, you go to a commercial site offering financial services. So the site is actually more like commercial spam or perhaps even phishing. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


What is paypals REAL URL?

I noticed that at the top of the article there is a link to paypals homepage and it has it as :

http:www.paypal.com

but then it has it down the bottom as :

https:www.paypal.com

(The second URL has the letter 'S' after 'http' but the first does not)

Maybe there could be some clarifcation as to why this is. Someone could suspect that one of the sites may be a fraudulent copy of the real one to get people to log in their personal details.


Just a thought.

161.50.48.2 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Both work. The http: one just redirects to the https: one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above, both work. But this brought up something I hadn't thought of - phishers could easily edit a Wikipedia link to direct visitors to their own phishing site. I guess this is caught by editors quickly when this happens... smileyborg 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The real thing about this is that although disguised as a security measure, paypool guys use the SSL protocol (https) as a permanent cookie, allowing them to uniquely indentify visitor machines even after IP's have changed. Then his software can cross the data with their databases of sites linking via SSL the "make payments..." or "make donations..." images and deduce: So you are the guy that in 05/09/2003 visited castlecops, and in 19/10/2007 visited txrivers, and in ...
Nothing of much importance, since profiling people is a practice used by almost every big brother company nowadays. Maybe the fine point from an user perspective is to develop the ability to distinguish between unethical angry money hunter companys and those that pursue to give you some added value to their products and services.
For the paranoids as myself, if you want to avoid the unwanted connections using SSL, use a software firewall that allows you to configure it to ask for such connections and selectively accept or reject them. You will be surprised on how increasingly is this practice. And note that no browser informs you of SSL connections unless they are at the main URL via the https prefix.
Finally the tech question. Look at SSL. Something shoud be said about public keys interchange. And your public key doesn't change on a regular basis unless you are reinstalling your OS on a regular basis. definitively nouser - 17 enero 2008 15:53:53:53:53:53:53:53:53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.32.182 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"https" simply denotes a secure page; you usually see these types of pages in website checkout pages. Travis Cleveland 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Card/bank account

"PayPal account holders must be 18 or over with a debit/credit card or bank account and an e-mail address."

Please check the correctness of this. Why is either a card or a bank account needed? PayPal offers several ways both to add and to withdraw funds: Adding funds:

  • Using a card (credit/debit)
  • By having PayPal charge the money from a bank account (available in some countries only, such as the United States)
  • By paying in cash at a bank account, post office or similar (available in some countries only, such as Sweden)
  • By transferring the bank from your bank account to PayPal's bank account (available in some countries only, such as Sweden)

Withdrawing funds:

  • Money inserted to a bank account (available in some countries only)
  • Cheque sent out by mail (available in some countries only)

If you only send money, and you pay in cash at a bank, why do you need either a bank account or a card? If you only receive money, and you receive the money as a cheque, why do you need either a bank account or a card? Or, let's say that you receive money from others, and then spend all of that money on other things, and spend no money other than the money you receive using PayPal, why do you need a bank account or a card? (58.188.97.134 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Because PayPal forces you to "verify" your address and to do that, they want either your credit card or bank account number. If you don't want to give this info, or you don't have either, they refuse to give you your money if you have any in your account.(75.21.163.212 08:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Please note that a bank account or a credit card is not a "MUST". users can open accounts, receive money and spend the money without having a bank account or a credit/debit card, however, they MUST be 18 yo and have an email address. Ntt ng 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In some countries (such as Sweden) you can either pay using a card, or add funds to your PayPal balance using a giro transfer (which can be performed by filling in a piece of paper and going to a bank office and pay in cash). You only need a bank account to withdraw money. Adding funds without a bank account or card is only possible in some countries, though.

In some countries (such as the United States) you can withdraw funds using a cheque. You can then go to the issuing bank and have it cashed directly over the desk (I suppose) and thus withdraw money directly in cash without first having to deposit it in a bank account. This option is only available in some countries, though. (Stefan2 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Criticism clean-up again

I'm going to clean up the criticism section again. Wikipedia policy requires that all information be sourced and be neutral point of view. The requirement for any item in the criticism would be that:

  1. The problem can be verified as existing
  2. The problem be labeled as a negative or criticism by a reliable source

Just because a company does something you don't like doesn't mean its a criticism shared by a non-trivial viewpoint. Applicable policies are Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. A reasonable time will be given for anyone who wants to add sources to that section to do so.--Crossmr 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unique Selling Proposition (USP)

I am surprised that there is no comparison of payment methods to show how unique PayPal is as compared to other payment systems. I understand that PayPal wins hands down in many situations, not only for on-line sales, but also for small fund transfers ... especially for transfers with and between countries outside North America and Europe ... but do not have numbers to compare. Does anyone have such information? Enquire 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV dispute [== Safety & Protection Policies ==]"== Safety & Protection Policies ==

In the second paragraph it sound more like a personal opinion, if it is you may want to quote part of that paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ntt ng (talkcontribs) 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Third paragraph "The company—by its own admission—uses automated systems to verify tracking numbers." I was not able to find where the company says that if the seller does not enter the correct tracking number, the seller will loose the claim without having a human being look at it. Ntt ng 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the sources of the criticism about the policies. Ntt ng 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Revived "Why are the critical sites being deleted?"

Sorry, I have been out of the loop recently. Anyway, I don't see that at all about the sites you mentioned being developed to drive traffic and the article being created being padded with keywords. It's one of the articles I point my clients to in order to understand the Paypal phishing problem. It's one of the few out there that I have seen that actually discusses the problem in detail and how to avoid it. That isn't the characteristic of a SPAM article. —The preceding comment was added by User:ibroker 19, March 2007

Accounts frozen

Some mention needs to be made of all the accounts frozen by paypal, including this: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/10/2325244 among others.

How does PayPal work?

I'm surprised a lengthy article like this is lacking a description of the basic functioning of this service. All it says is that PayPal "serves as an electronic alternative to traditional paper methods such as cheques and money orders", "performs payment processing for online vendors, auction sites, and other corporate users, for which it charges a fee" and that it is "licensed as a money transmitter" and is "not a bank". But how does it actually work? How is that "payment processing" and "money transmision" done? I mean, some people like me have never used PayPal, so I have no idea about things such as what kind of information they require from the users to set up an account, what steps they take to transfer the money between buyer and seller, etc. Do PayPal payments work as some kind of online postal giros? Or does PayPal merely serve to hide the user's credit card number from the receiver of the payment, using the PayPal account as a kind of "virtual" credit card? Or do users "recharge" their PayPal accounts with money from their bank accounts and then payments through PayPal are done with the money available in the PayPal account and not directly with the money in the user's bank account? 213.37.6.106 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Business today" section

"PayPal allows customers to send, receive and hold funds in 17 currencies worldwide. These currencies are the U.S. Dollar, Canadian Dollar, Australian Dollar, Euro, Pounds Sterling, Japanese Yen, Chinese RMB, Czech Koruna, Danish Krone, Hong Kong Dollar, Hungarian Forint, New Zealand Dollar, Norwegian Krone, Polish Zloty, Singapore Dollar, Swedish Krona, and Swiss Franc."

CNY may not be used for sending money worldwide, only for sending money within the People's Republic of China.

"For PayPal.cn, the only supported currency is the Renminbi (RMB, ISO: CNY), whereas PayPal.com supports Canadian Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling, U.S. Dollar, Australian Dollar, New Zealand Dollar, Swiss Franc, Hong Kong Dollar, Singapore Dollar, Swedish Krona, Danish Krone, Polish Zloty, Norwegian Krone, Hungarian Forint, Czech Koruna."

This is a repetition of the previous list of currencies, although in a different order. This is confusing.

The whole section seems unstructurised & needs to be rewritten in a better way. (Stefan2 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

  • The list is not really worth including anyway. Better to simply say "PayPal accepts several currencies" and point them to PayPal's own page about it, since the list is entirely likely to change over time; the list is more specific than is really encyclopedic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Telephone nec.

I was (repeatedly) denied a paypal account because (as far as i could tell), I didn't have a telephone. If I am correct in my understanding Paypal's denial statements, then the necessity of having a telephone (or at least to give a telephone number) should be indicated. (And then I started getting dunning e-mails and confirmation request from PayPal about purchases. Not a single one of my e-mails back was answered by a human being. ) Kdammers 11:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

CURRENCY CONVERSION COSTS

It is probably worthwhile to consider the costs that paypal and CARD ISSUERS charge for paying someone in a different currency to yourself. I am unaware of the costs of either process (though, as always, it's probably the bank and paypal that get their cut of the profits).

FacetiousEconomics 17:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't a guide to using paypal. Its an encyclopedic entry on the website. Also see WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Crossmr 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not encyclopedic to note that PayPal, which touts itself as an alternative to traditional payment methods, charges in a similar manner as said traditional payment methods? I don't find it remotely "user guide"-like to mention such. Achromatic 08:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to draw a conclusion feel free to do so, have it published in a reliable source and identified as a non-trivial view point and it can be included in the article. Alternative means choice, it doesn't mean it has to be wildly different.--Crossmr 13:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF SANDBOX

This section has very little relevance to the end user. When we talk about a piece of software, do we feel the need to cite that there are "detailed documents" for users to use the system? I feel there's very little value to be had having this section in there, and the language used is borderline NPOV, seems to serve more "advertising" than statement of fact (a fact which is of little merit, to my perception, both as a user of PayPal, and as a developer of merchant solutions utilizing said API and resources). Achromatic 08:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Criticism and PayPalSucks.com

Crossmr and Yoder, you both have a huge collection of debating points. Can you each please provide a summary in a nutshell so that editors new to the RFC won't have to wade through all of that to get up to speed. VisitorTalk 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


To start, I'll note that people are confusing WP:RS with WP:EL. They are different guidelines (emphasis on guideline) for different types of content.Reliable sources applies to the content added to Wikipedia (e.g. the writing) and EL is the guideline for links. In many situations even blatantly biased websites are linked because they either a) have good information or b) represent a certain biased POV well.

If you're against PayPalSucks.com, then you might as well go through all of Wikipedia and remove ALL websites critical of a certain subject. The consensus on Wikipedia is clearly for inclusion of criticism websites as external links and I find it rather disingenuous that a former or current arbcomm member would deliberately take an arbcomm ruling out of context and put it into a context where at best there's no consensus and at worst the consensus is the opposite.

Very often when dealing with more technical subjects you need to reference more modern types of sources. This includes popular blogs (as they represent popular opinion--NPOV requires representing the views that exist based on how widely belived they are, NOT based on how accurate they are) and blog-like website like Slashdot (a quick Googling of Slashdot for PayPal related posts reveals a significant number of critical articles mysteriously missing).

If you search other major tech sites you'll get similar information on things involving PayPal freezing accounts and such. PayPal criticism is woefully underrepresented wrt to NPOV requirements. Even if praise is too, that is not a valid reason to remove criticism. Websites like PayPalSucks.com are popular among pay pal websites and as such, represent a popular viewpoint, one that need to be represented and it doesn't amtter how popular it is.

Many times even forum posts (and emailing lists) are actually acceptable when more authoritative figures on a subject are speaking in them. Applying an absoutlist standard to a guideline simply doesn't work.

-Nathan J. Yoder 09:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Its your opinion on how popular they are. that's original research. Its also basically an attack site and we don't link to those. If reliable sources can't be found to source for criticism, then its not woefully underrepresented, that is the point of WP:NPOV. It doesn't require that you cover every viewpoint. It requires that you cover every sourceable viewpoint which isn't trivial. If the vast majority of criticism is coming from blogs and other self-published sources which fail WP:RS and WP:V it doesn't get covered. Blogs never pass unless the blog is written by the subject of the article. So if paypal starts a blog its a reliable source on paypal. But thats the extent of the usage of blogs as sources on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and if the websites don't meet the policies and guidelines, we're not going to make exceptions so someone can build a case to support their viewpoint.--Crossmr 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were original research, then the same applies to all viewpoints represented which aren't accompanied by scientific opinion polls. If you look at the various guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, you'll actually see suggestions on how to use various methods of determining the popularity of websites (including PageRank) as subject for inclusion of those websites (note: this is for inclusion of a link or synthesis of the content NOT for inclusion of an analysis of popularity). You're going against a lot of consensus and guidelines. Not to mention, this would require taking down massive portions of Wikipedia on virtually all computer related subjects.

Websites on opinions are inherently self-verified. That's not even an issue, unless you're going to suggest that the people on these pages are lying about having their own viewpoints. The existence of such websites in such numbers and of such popularity must be documented for NPOV purposes. It is synthesis, not original research to document the existence of a viewpoint. The accuracy of the viewpoint is 100% irrelevant.

You didn't really address my argument, you just repeated your original assertions Please establish how it fails to me the guidelines of WP:EL--we're talking about external links here, after all, NOT WP:RL. You can explain how WP:EL doesn't actually apply to external links and how WP:RS suddenly does.

Furthermore, consensus has shown that it's acceptable under certain circumstances to link to blogs well beyond what you've stated, including those that a I mentioned--so please present evidence that it doesn't meet the critera for WP:RL and is not a suitable exception. Why is an official PayPal blog not acceptable, but commentary from a popular blog author not? Because an organization talking about itself is going to be so unbiased, right? If you look under the Wikipedia page for 'convenience links,' it actually has arguments specifically against inclusion of such a website. You should cite parts of guidelines that actually disagree with this.

If a view is widely represented on the internet, it would be a egregious violation of NPOV to not even mention it. You are confusing the existence of opinions with analyzing those opinions. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Undo weight. People are having trouble finding reliable sources to establish a criticism section. Hence it falls under a minority viewpoint. Self-verified doesn't pass WP:V or WP:RS that's not something that is really open for debate to be honest. An organization talking about itself isn't necessarily going to be neutral, but as far as authority goes, they are it. What bob says about bob, true or not, is inherently more reliable than what joe says about bob. On the other hand if Joe is a reliable source, you write "Bob stated this, but Joe, a reliable source stated this about the situation". This doesn't apply in this case. A bunch of random users with an axe to grind on forums and blogs doesn't remotely meet any of the requirements to be included as an external link. There is a reason they're excluded, otherwise every article from one end to the other would be chock full of them. --Crossmr 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be wanting to avoid the debate entirely by reasserting your viewpoint argumentum ad nauseam and declaring it not up for debate. What constitutes a reliable source is a matter of contention, therefore your argument is incomplete since it doesn't establish why it's not a reliable source. The only thing not up for debate is ignoring consensus, which is what you seem to be doing.

Points you didn't address: why the links don't fall under EL (you simply asserted it without backing it up) and how RS applies to EL, the usage in guidelines of Wikipedia of Google PageRank and other tools in assessing how widespread certain views are (popularity of views is what determines undue weight), how blogs (and other non-traditional-news websites) are inherently disqualified for RS (with your one exception) in spite of consensus to the contrary and no policies stating that.

I've seen a massive consensus for adding links which are considered useful to the end of the article which are not RS, especially not in terms of how you're describing it. If we obeyed your criteria, the majority of links would have to be removed from the Wikipedia article and by all means, go over there and try to enforce your views and see how far you get.

You can take your pick of articles you've edited in the past, especially non-business ones. What about Defense of the Ancients? That one is chock full of citations from random gaming websites. Those don't meet your criteria of RS.

Banning all non-traditional-news and non-study sources would eliminate a massive amount of Wikipedia's content. Where is the policy that states that all criticism websites are to be banned, by the way? And we definitely want to get rid of links to websites with multimedia content (e.g. videos) that help explain the material. That would be like...so against the purpose of teaching people things.

Did you try Googling "PayPal criticisms"? There are 1.7 million links--it's hardly a rare viewpoint. Even the first link is "Assessing Criticism of PayPal," a well written assessment of criticisms.

How can you call something more reliable while simultaneously disregarding its truth? Being untruthful is the antithesis of reliability and the whole spirit of the WP:RS policy. So no sources can be an authority on something except that thing itself? Where is the policy stating this? Why can't another website be authoritative?

This isn't a "bunch of random people," this is NUMEROUS people as evidenced by my search above. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting including every webpage--that's both a slippery slope and straw man argument. Including a well written article about the problems with PayPal would be tragic if it didn't come from a traditional news source.

I'm going to link this page elsewhere to get more opinons.

-Nathan J. Yoder 08:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Google isn't a reliable method for testing reliability. Maybe you should re-read WP:V, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Maybe that is where your confusion is. The fact remains is no sources which meet WP:V or WP:RS. Since there is no reliable criticism of the subject, it becomes a trivial viewpoint. Which is covered under WP:EL as undue weight and linking to websites on that subject would be improper. It can't be anymore clear than that. Unless we start getting reliable sources covering paypal criticism it doesn't meet the criteria for being included in the article, whether its as a see also, an external link or a section in the article. If other articles have included it, its reason to check those articles for clean-up. The policies and guidelines are quite clear. Self-published forums, websites, blogs and other things of that sort do not qualify for citation. Otherwise for $15 I could whip up citations that say all kinds of things and claim all kinds of popular viewpoints. If it doesn't garner the attention of the professional media they consider it a trivial viewpoint and so do we. The community has established that as its standards. With almost 2 million articles on wikipedia its easy for one or more to slip through the cracks and contain information they shouldn't. This isn't consensus or license to put the same kind of improper information in other articles. The banning of attack websites comes from an arbcom ruling. I believe if you check the archives you can find it. It was previously brought up when that site was removed a long time ago. We're not banning all non-traditional sources. We're disallowing their use for establishing notability of a subject and usefulness as citation. If several reliable sources (i.e. news articles) were written with their focus being criticism of paypal it could then become appropriate to add external links on that subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:NOT among many other things, and if the notability of this criticism cannot be established through accepted policies and guidelines it doesn't belong in the article or the external links. We don't artificially create "balance" by adding criticism sections to articles for which there is no notable criticism. The google test was thrown out long ago as a method to establish notability.--Crossmr 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
PaypalSucks is really a website set up to promote their "alternative" merchantinc.com. Giving a forum for people to attack the market leader can only help having people use their services.
I have read many post on the website and I most are from angry users of Paypal who did not read the terms an conditions when signing up. All are far from objective and I don't take it seriously.

Bigar 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Paypalsux.com is an acceptable external link or source for the article. If there is independently published criticism or investigation of paypal (in newspapers or magazines) it could be used in a criticism section. If paypalsux has collected this information, that could be used to help an editor write a criticism section, but it should not be linked to as a source or an external link (any citations would go directly to the proper source and not the intermediate aggregator web site.)
By the way, this dispute is at least a year old and sooner or later someone should put their foot down once and for all. Dread Pirate WestleyAargh 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
crossmr, you keep repeating yourself and are avoiding addressing my arguments. I never said that the threshold for inclusion is truth. I'd appreciate it if you read my argument and addressed it directly.
The arbcom ruling was taken out of context and we've already established that. Repeating it doesn't make it more true.
How do you plan on evaluating notability (which is the issue for inclusion of external links)? How to explain away the many guidelines providing methods such as Google for evaluating notability? Where was the Google test and other tests thrown out as a test for notability (NOT as a citation itself)?
How aren't published sources verifiable? You never answered that. A source where someone or some group publishes their opinion is inherently self-verified. Again, are you suggesting that these sites are lying about their own opinions?
What do you mean by "self-published"? All websites are "published" by the people who run them. By your standard, PayPal.com and NewYorkTimes.com are "self-published." No one is referring to a Wikipedian including their own source here, so that's a moot point and would qualify as original research if you did.
If you were the only one doing it, that definitely wouldn't be a measure of popularity. How can you equate one single blog existing to numerous blogs existing on a subject as being equal in popularity?
What policy requires that something be mentioned in a "professional" news source to be notable? There isn't one. It seems you're using circular logic--the other sources aren't professional because they're not mentioned in professional sources. Where is the policy requiring that notability be established only through traditional news sources? What is "professional" anyway? There are plenty of blogs and websites written by people who make their income from those blogs/websites and hence are writing professionally. There are even blogs written by professional writers on major news websites like the Washington Post and Wired.
Furthermore, you're wrong about PayPal criticism not existing the sources you prefer. Look at this well written criticism from a magazine. You rejected a news website with PayPal criticism on the basis that it only talked about one customer's complaint about how the account was closed (btw, it was actually frozen)--a complaint from a major customer of a VERY POPULAR website (Something Awful).
There are a variety of news sources publishing the same story about Something Awful's account. You have changed the rules now--it's not enough to get mentioned by many news sources and have the client itself be highly notable itself, the individual action taken must past crossmr's personal, non-wikipedia based standard? Sorry, but you aren't supported by any policies here, either. At this point I can't assume good faith anymore, I can only assume that you're trying remove all criticism no matter what.
There's also plenty written patent lawsuits of PayPal in news sources. This is not counting other types of lawsuits. Even the legal section includes one of the lawsuits, but it's not listed as criticism. The website HowStuffWorks (very popular) not only lists criticism, but considers PayPalSucks.com to be the most prominent website for criticism--there's it being mentioned in a reliable source.
Whether or not PayPalSucks.com is objective or truthful is irrelevant, as Wikipedia doesn't assess truth. Where is the evidence that PayPalSucks.com is run by the merchantinc.com people? Just because they recommend it doesn't mean that they're the same company and the burden is on you to prove that they are the same organization. In other words, you need to prove that PayPalsucks.com is not an independent source.
That is all from a cursory search, too. How can you claim there is no notable criticism? As for putting the foot down--this extends beyond just a single website, it's more than crossmr keeps trying to censor criticism and write his own policies. I suggest you read him repeatedly asserting that various things are policy without backing them up. Remember, crossmr even tried to remove mention of Something Awful's account being frozen even though he acknowledged the link should be included. -Nathan J. Yoder 09:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And your recent edit clearly shows the bias you're trying to insert. Nowhere in that article did I see a quote from the something awful individual stating he was criticizing them for freezing the account. In fact he clearly states that he understood why they did it, but didn't like the way the customer service handled it after it was frozen. We don't deal in sensationalism and we're not your soapbox. This [1] defends against criticism, it doesn't criticize. He takes common criticisms he found floating around the web and addressed them. His only conclusion? Once again a big company is having issues with its customer service. This is neither unique nor special to paypal. Its almost a given, and really would only be notable if their customer service was an exceptional level of bad or good.

From where I stand, PayPal still needs to work on its inadequate customer service system. Paying customers have a right to expect better, more responsive, service.

But when I consider other complaints against PayPal, I find several of them ignorant or unrealistic in their expectations.

He's pretty clear on what he's saying there. The only thing he really finds to be a valid criticism is the customer service. Those other criticism which you think are so important to include aren't worth talking about. As far as the definition of self-published goes, those sites are the poster child. Someone paid a few bucks for hosting and gathered some disgruntled people together to bash a company. Welcome to the internet. They're a dime a dozen. Anyone can fire one up. Anyone can fabricate the posts (or bulk of them) and content on those sites. They are not reliable. they will never be reliable in the context of wikipedia. If you chose to believe them, thats your choice, but if you'd like to discuss why they're not considered reliable and why, you might want to start some discussions over at WP:V and WP:RS.--Crossmr 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The sentence I reinserted never said that the complaint was over the account getting frozen, so please, please stop acting in bad faith. Not just that, but you deleted it in its entirety, instead of simply changing it so something like "Something Awful complained about such and such." In other words, you're whitewashing criticism deliberately. You can call me biased, but you certainly can't claim I'm acting in bad faith.
You only attempted address TWO of my many complaints regarding the criticism section and both are incomplete and in bad faith (you outright ignored other sources that would be considered reliable even under your definintion), meaning that you're effectively ending your participation--so how can you claim that a tag is unwarranted? Your "definition" of bad faith is incredibly vague and isn't based on any policy or guidelines at all--please give SPECIFIC citations if you believe otherwise (your history shows that you'll just like to the main page and say "oh it's somewhewhere in there, trust me). How much is a "few bucks" and where is this finance report you have of all these websites showing how much they've spent?
The source you quote says only that /several/ of the other complaints are unfounded, not ALL of them. Please read the the source. Even then, you still want ONE sentence for all of the criticism. Furthermore, read this: "But freezing PayPal accounts has raised the ire of many vocal critics." That's an acknowledgement that it's a common complaint, not just a few people--meaning it warrants inclusion (it doesn't matter whether or not the source agrees) and still, you want one sentence no matter how many complaints there are. The various lawsuits against PayPal? Nothing. Various reliable websites you exclude for no reason? The rest that you exclude on the basis of financial information you don't have and refuse to even define? You are giving undue weight.
When you're reading to address all of my NPOV/undue weight issues, go ahead, but until then all I have is you repeating the same one censoring edit and just being vague about how the rest must somehow be wrong without providing anything to support your argument. And as such I am tagging this for NPOV issues, because you are outright refusing to address many them partially or entirely (not just disagreeing). --Nathan J. Yoder 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You're being deliberately vague and non-specific about the complaint to make it look like it was more than it was. Again you've inserted information about the case which is immaterial to the complaint itself. Not once did he complain about the account being frozen, only how customer service handled it. The customer service has been criticized generally and not specifically. The other sources support that. Mentioning hurricane katrina when the complaint wasn't about that is sensationalism by trying to garner sympathy and put a pov on the issue by making it out to be bigger than it is. You haven't provided a reliable source for criticism of the closure of the accounts. The only reliable sources there debunks those complaints. You continue to insert information for which a reliable source has not been provided. this manner of investigation has lead to criticism. No, the guy from something awful said he understood why they did it, no criticism there. The other article which discusses "common criticisms" on the web, concludes that anything outside of the customer service complaints aren't worth discussing as far as he's concerned as his conclusion only focuses on those as being notable. which caused the donations to be sent back to the donors, resulting in complaints regarding the handling of the case. anyone who reads that without bothering to read the case could very easily conclude that paypal was criticized for freezing the accounts and not simply for their customer service. This is the NPOV issue. Again wikipedia is not your soapbox. The only thing that has been provided in reliable sources is criticism of their customer service. Not the vague "handling" of a case tied to a controversial subject. As far as my citation for anyone being able to create these sites? Why don't you head over to [2] and you too can create a paypal attack site for only $8/month to say whatever you want about paypal with whatever criteria you want. Plenty of storage and plenty of traffic to host one of these sites. There are 3 citations there for that criticism (though one of them isn't really a citation of criticism, because its not covered in the ecommerce link) if someone wants an example that is what the references are for. Adding an "example" while using a controversial hot topic is undue weight. As far as whitewashing it goes, I've pointed out that this complaint about customer service for a company so large that does so much volume is barely notable. Its a concession to even allow it to be mentioned in the article, reliable sources or not. one general criticism and an article from a couple of years ago doesn't build a very strong case that criticism of paypal is notable outside of some self-published gripe sites.--Crossmr 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've provided two specific issues with what you wrote. One is a out right fabrication which isn't supported by the sources and the other is with the way its worded to leave possibly mislead the reader in to thinking the criticism was about more than just the customer service and possibly about the actual freezing of the accounts (which was in the fabrication). You're obviously trying to build a case that paypal has been criticized over the freezing of the accounts (and not just in their customer service after an account was frozen). If this is the case, find some news articles and provide it. In none of those articles do I read any valid criticism of paypal freezing accounts. The fact that you're struggling to find news articles and the like that criticize paypal and are continually trying to push for self-published sources to be included should clearly indicate to you that the criticism is not nearly as notable as those sites make it out to be. If it was you'd be able to find endless news articles written on the subject.--Crossmr 03:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You're attempting wikilawyering and aren't doing a good job of it. Again you still refuse to address my many NPOV issues stated and requests for you to cite various specific aspects of policies to actually support what I'm saying. For example (just one example there are more), my queries about the Google Test which you never backed up--saying "oh it's part of policy somewhere on the reliable sources page kinda sorta maybe dunno" doesn't cut it. I've been very specific and if you thought otherwise, you should have ASKED which parts weren't specific enough instead of outright ignoring them to push your POV. On the contrary, you have been deliberately vague and I still asked for clarification--you didn't.
I'm getting very sick of your lies. Now that you're not getting your way, even Wired.com is not a reliable source, nor is the very website (SomethingAwful.com--very notable and has its own Wikipedia article). Kyanaka (you know who that is, right?) called it a fiasco. This can all be found using a very straightforward and simple Google search, so your lies and bad faith don't cut it--this was also well known within various internet communities.
If we had to your way, no article on all of Wikipedia about a company would have any criticisms about customer service AT ALL. Apparently, major, news-worthy cases of customer service complaints don't even qualify.
You don't delete something in its entirety if just part of it is inaccurate, you CORRECT IT. The statement NEVER said that they were complaining over the accounts being frozen, that is another one of your lies--I even changed it as a good faith measure to clarify that. If you thought the phrasing was bad, then rephrase it--deleting it all is blatant POV pushing and whitewashing. Even if mentioning Hurricane Katrina was not appropriate, then you would just delete the reference to Hurricane Katrina itself. One of the major reasons that it was so controversial was the fact that it was for donations for Katrina--it's very relevant. Whether or not you agree with that making it worse is irrelevant to the fact that many did. If you disagree, go to Something Awful and remove reference to it, I dare you.
You are using your personal agenda to set Wikipedia policy--if a reliable source mentions something, it can be used, even if that source disagrees with it. First, I'll mention that you said that page stated that there was only that one type of criticism an the rest were bogus, when he said "several" of the rest were bogus, not all--you refused to address that lie. Second, the source said there are MANY complaints--"many" making it notable by NPOV standards--the author's personal standard of notability (if he even said that) is 100% irrelevant as we're dealing with Wikipedia notability standards.
As for your "citation," it's not a citation for what I was asking for at all. I never asked how to setup a website, but you can feel free to ramble about that to distract from the real point. I asked for your citation in policies/guidelines regarding how much a website costs as a factor in determining it as a reliable source (it doesn't exist) and another citation providing the financial records for PayPalSucks.com--since you claim to know how much they've spent. Furthermore, what about traditional news sources linking to paypal criticism websites? They have done it and I seem to recall you explictily saying that qualifies it for external linking.
Lets not forget the many lawsuits against PayPal. I'm sure that a lawsuit against a company, especially a class action lawsuit from customers with specific demands, hardly qualifies as a criticism, right? I actually brought this up before and you ignored it. -Nathan J. Yoder 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe I have to do this. It is just so obvious that it's criticism and you're denying it and it really makes me wonder if you're a shill for PayPal. I linked this page from Something Awful's talk page for input. Here's a quote form Kyanaka: "I'm not going to tell people to close their Paypal accounts. I'm not going to say all their actions were completely unwarranted. I'm just presenting my experience with them and will allow you to draw your own conclusions. However, I harbor a fundamental disagreement with their business practice of assuming all their clients are filthy criminals who must repeatedly prove their innocence to a series of unmanned servers and computer systems. I do not support their ability to freeze entire accounts, take money from whoever they want at whatever time they want, and impose whatever arbitrary rules and regulations they deem necessary without having to answer to any organization." -Nathan J. Yoder 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
did I deny it? no. I questioned it when compared to the other citations, I also pointed out that he makes a number of points in what he's saying where he doesn't criticize them or all of their behaviour. In one breath he criticizes them, in another breath he says he understands why they did certain things and doesn't blame them for it. Worse they're about the same thing. Here he criticizes them for the freezing of the account, yet tells wired he doesn't blame them for it. So which is it?--Crossmr 05:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you've denied that he's criticizing PayPal at all, why else would you remove any mention of him criticizing them for anything? So what if he doesn't cricize 100% of their behavior? Are you suggesting that it's not criticism if someone doesn't criticize 100% of it? The only thing he doesn't blame them for is the red flagging, but feel free to quote something else. Where does he contradict himself? I want to see the precise quotes. Even if you were true, at best it would mean an inconsistency over criticism of the act of freezing itself--he still clearly criticized other aspects, hence IT IS NOTABLE and should be INCLUDED. Why do you keep removing the criticism in its entirety instead of clarifying and correcting it? -Nathan J. Yoder 05:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before continuing. Did I say wired was unreliable? No. I said it was reliable. I also said it did not support what you claimed. The wired article very clearly states he is criticizing them for their customer service, NOT for the freezing of the account. You're trying to use the source to support something which he didn't criticize them for. He may have criticized them elsewhere, but no where in those 3 sources were they criticized for the actual freezing of the account. The core of what you wrote was inaccurate and a fabrication. There is no elaboration on the specific incident necessary to convey the point that paypal has been criticized for its customer service. A 2 year old article about an incident. Put that in perspective with how large a company paypal is and the volume they do and the best specific example (and seemingly only one) that is really newsworthy is 2 years old? How notable does the criticism of paypals customer service really look in that context? If you were finding a news article a month about it I'd say create a multiparagraph section dedicated to just that. But that's not the case here is it? Have you read WP:NPOV? Did you read the section on undue weight? Accounts which accrue funds quickly can be locked for investigation as to the source of the funds and this manner of investigation has lead to criticism. There is no other way to read that than people are criticizing them for freezing the accounts. That isn't in those 3 sources. No where. I've read them each about 3 times. If you'd like to introduce more reliable sources feel free but they have to go in the article with the content. The only criticism that individual felt worthy of concluding the article with was about the customer service. Even if there were any he felt that might have had merit (he says several, but doesn't elaborate on which ones so its impossible to draw the conclusion on what if any other criticism he felt might be valid) was the customer service issue. The only conclusion the reader can draw is the same one he drew, the customer service is notable, several of the rest are false, and any remaining which aren't false aren't worth talking about. The ones he does conclude are notable enough to discuss and be concerned about are covered in the criticism section. The cost of the website has nothing to do with it. the fact is there is no evidence those website are run by professional journalists or anything of the like. Again go read WP:RS and WP:V under self-published sources which these are. They've either got to be professional researchers or journalists for self-published opinions to have any verifiability outside of about themselves. Lawsuits can be cited. If you can provide citation they can be put in the article. Hurricane katrina is meaningless. It has nothing to do with the complaint in the wired article. The complaint is about the customer service. The customer service issue came up around a controversial event, but other than that the two aren't linked. Paypal wasn't out beating survivors while they floated down the streets. they froze an account which accrued money very quickly, a new account. Even on the something awful link you provide, he admits that he doesn't blame paypal for raising red flags over that. So then it becomes a question of what happened? There are two sides to the story and you're all too willing to provide a single side. It could be pretty easy to solve though. is there a copy of the ToS from when the Something awful donation account was created? Did he simply fail to read the ToS and find that if his account behaved that way it'd be frozen? Don't know, and wouldn't know from those links. you have his self-published statement about what happened. Much like a newspaper editorial which I've seen some people discount because they're "opinion" pieces and not based on verifiable facts like a normal column article. The question then comes up why didn't wired report that he was criticizing them for freezing the account and not simple the customer service after the fact?--Crossmr 04:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I should add that I reported you for violating 3RR. I'll number some of the current points (I'll get to the others after this) to make sure you address them. I suggest you read all the pages you linked to yourself, as you don't seem to understand how they work and I assure, I often read them to make sure I'm following them.
1. The fact of the matter is, criticism of PayPal exists by SA, regardless of the specifics. You are deleting the statement in its ENTIRETY instead of just correcting what it's about. You quote one sentence, but you deleted TWO. Sorry, but that's completely dishonest. I've explicitly asked you to clarify it if you think the phrasing is bad after attempting to clarify it myself. Deleting it instead of clarifying it is a clear violation of NPOV policy.
2. At the end of the sentence I added "and this manner of investigation has lead to criticism." The reader could conclude that it was the manner of investigation that was being criticized, obviously. If you were acting in good faith, you could have just changed it to your liking, such as "PayPal has been criticized for the method of investiagion used preceding accounts being frozen."
2. I never said it was criticism over freezing the account. You are changing the subject repeatedly and at best this equates to nitpicking semantics.
3. A source from the horse's mouth is DEFINITELY reliable. Something Awful not only is a notable website in and of itself, but the quotes from that page a from the site's FOUNDER--OFFICIAL STATEMENTS. Official statements from a party involved in a notable incident are always notable, feel free to establish otherwise. Feel free to cite any part of policy or guideline citing otherwise, so far you've only linked to general pages.
4. "The wired article very clearly states he is criticizing them for their customer service, NOT for the freezing of the account." So why try to prevent that from being in the article?
5. Regarding the criticism article. He said that there are many criticisms about accounts being frozen. Many criticisms = notable. "But freezing PayPal accounts has raised the ire of many vocal critics." Whether or not he thinks these criticisms are valid or notable are totally irrelevant. If many opinions exist about something, they MUST be included in the article regardlesss of their veracity. This is the core of NPOV policy.
6. The author's notability and Wikipedia's notability are two different things. Whether or not he considers something notable is irrelevant. All that matters is acknowledgment that something is frequent enough. Something being common enough inherently makes it notable.
7. "any remaining which aren't false aren't worth talking about" You are speculating about his thoughts--Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is possible that he did not want to write about them for various reasons. Following your logic, an author will always include 100% of all information available on the subject they're writing about that they consider notable.
8. "There is no elaboration on the specific incident necessary to convey the point that paypal has been criticized for its customer service." So Wikipedia should never give examples? I want to see this anti-example policy. Examples certainly help convey a point better and help to better ground it in reality rather than this "Wikipedia must be vague and general" policy you created. The event happened with a notable website using services from a notable service that got published in various news sources. Surely, that's not notable.
9. "A 2 year old article about an incident." Wikipedia records history. The age of the incident is irrelevant. So historical criticisms of a company should never be excluded? Wikipedia is not paper. Talk about whitewashing history. "Put that in perspective with how large a company paypal is and the volume they do and the best specific example (and seemingly only one) that is really newsworthy is 2 years old?" Volume? That sounds like original research to me. It's not the only event, there are a variety of other lawsuits on concerning different issues.
10. "If you were finding a news article a month about it I'd say create a multiparagraph section dedicated to just that." How would being recent make it warrant multiple paragraphs? Does this mean that such a criticism would be deleted 2 years later? Again, Wikipedia is not paper.
11. "Again go read WP:RS and WP:V under self-published sources which these are." This is why I asked you to be specific. Why are you refusing to be specific? I asked this because a) they are not that specific and b) there are different parts of them. Can you quote something or reference a part of it that is relevant?
I've reread those and don't see any of the sources used qualifying as self-published. PayPalSucks.com is hardly a personal website and is definitely not a blog. Even with blogs it is meant to only apply to certain types (read the citation). There are also exceptions to self-published works at that.
12. "The only criticism that individual felt worthy of concluding the article with was about the customer service." You acknowledge this and yet you want to delete one of the most well cited (non-legal-action) examples of this.
13-a. "They've either got to be professional researchers or journalists for self-published opinions to have any verifiability outside of about themselves." Interestingly, this isn't a part of Wikipedia policy. Feel free to cite a specific section or even better quote from part of it if you feel otherwise.
13-b. "The cost of the website has nothing to do with it." Then Don't say it does! You're backpedaling. It seems that you make up the rules as you go, then back out of them when it's demonstrated that they can't work. So please, either point to specific parts of a policy that backs up what you say, or at least try to give a specific definition of a self-reported source that you won't back out of. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
14. "Lawsuits can be cited. If you can provide citation they can be put in the article." They have been. The class-action lawsuit has been in the article for a very long time, just not listed under the criticism section. I also added about half a dozen more lawsuits. So why are you still refusing to acknowledge that there is verifiable and notable criticism of this form? Is Wikipedia supposed to be as vague as possible?
15. "The customer service issue came up around a controversial event, but other than that the two aren't linked." Since you are intent on analyzing how they're linked. Without that controversial event, the customer service issue would NOT EXIST. Without Hurricane Katrina, this would have never happened, because obviously they're not creating a charity for an event that didn't happen.
You don't understand how notability applies. When it comes to criticism, notability is measured by the amount of criticism that exists and nothing else--the veracity (truth) of it is irrelevant as Wikipedia doesn't include material on the basis of accuracy. The reason this was so controversial (with so much public outcry) was because it was such a large amount donated by so many people on the account of a notable Website for something they considered a serious worthy cause.
All of the articles on it bring up Katrina, which in itself makes it relevant in the article. That would be ridiculous--Wikipedia's goal is not to be vague, especially considering it's in all the linked articles anyway. Are you going ask to exclude it mentioning that it involved SA too?
16. "There are two sides to the story and you're all too willing to provide a single side." LOL. That's a good one. You're all too willing to delete that side and you're accusing me of bias. I am not against showing the other side at all, feel free to point where I deleted things you've added showing the other side--OH WAIT--you never even attempted to do that, making your criticism disingenuous. In fact, almost all of the article is either neutral or in favor of PayPal anyway.
17. "It could be pretty easy to solve though. is there a copy of the ToS from when the Something awful donation account was created? Did he simply fail to read the ToS and find that if his account behaved that way it'd be frozen?" Read WP:NOR--that's blatant original research, not to mention would involve using your personal POV about what he did or did not fail to do. You haven't even given any sources for this and yet you claim it's so easy to solve. Go ahead--be honest and do this easy thing. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
18. In addition to my commentary on your misinterpretation of it, WP:RS is a guideline, NOT a policy. I strongly suggest you read up on the differences between policies and guidelines. One of the main reasons for this is that it requires inherent value judgments of the veracity and objectivity of the content, which is against the general spirit of NPOV policy. This prevents people from excluding websites via wikilawyering and arguing semantics (to promote a POV) which are clearly useful for the encyclopedia and will increase its quality.
Assuming we used your incorrect interpretation of the guideline, we would basically have to exclude all high quality writing, no matter how well-written and well sourced if the person wasn't a paid writer. There is absolutely no policy on Wikipedia that prohibits usage of blogs. You should keep this in mind when you edit other articles as well. Please stop suggesting that your personal opinion is Wikipedia policy--there's a reason that you are unable to cite anything specific to back up your statements--it's because nothing exists. For someone so obsessive about citations, you sure seem to do a poor job of it yourself. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1. The specifics are quite important. You're ignoring the fact that he told wired that he didn't blame them for freezing the account and then wrote on SA that he does blame them. We don't blindly cite things in the face of contradictory evidence.
2. When I pointed out the problem with the sentence, if you were acting in good faith you would have changed the way it was worded. You wanted the material included its up to you to make sure its acceptable. I pointed out on the talk page and in the edit summary the problem. Instead of fixing it you reverted it ignoring the problems.
3. Primary sources are not the preferred method of citation on wikipedia. Notability has NOTHING to do with verifiability they are two completely different things.From WP:RS Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. Something awful doesn't fall under that. However wired does and it contradicts what he says on SA.
4. I didn't prevent it. What you included was an attempt to be vague about the issue and make it look like it was more than it was. You tried to use a hot button controversial topic to create a neutrality issue.
5. Keep reading NPOV, especially undue weight. If you can't find any news stories about people actually criticizing them for freezing accounts, no. He says there are many complaints about many things, but concludes that only the ones about customer service are worth really talking about and that is what is in the article.
6. He's a single author who has mentioned the frozen accounts yet concludes his article without mentioning them as an issue. That doesn't drive the notability of the problem up there.
7. and you're speculating on any of the remaining ones which he MIGHT have thought were notable. We know he mentioned the customer service issues so he considers those notable. He didn't mention anything else. So anything else was either not notable to him or outright false.
8. Some things need examples, some don't. It would be a unique individual who came to this article that couldn't understand the concept that a large company has a customer service problem and what a customer service problem might be.
9. Not at all. Historical criticism shouldn't be excluded, however it has to be in context. Again undue weight. If there was newsworthy criticism monthly I'd say dedicate all kinds of space to it. But that is not the case. You have 1 incident from 2 years ago.
10. 1 article a month means 12 articles a year. Which means its an on-going and prominent issue worthy of extensive coverage in the article. Just because a company was criticized at one point or another (Which pretty much all companies are) doesn't mean its necessarily worth full extensive coverage in the article. Paypal certainly isn't wal-mart which his a mountain of news articles written about the criticism of that company.
11. Paypal sucks or any of those other cites are not field experts. I've pointed out how easy it is to whip up one of those sites. I also told if you wanted to discuss their reliability there are two talk pages perfect for it.
12. No I wanted to prevent that example from being use as a soapbox with sensationalist language. You've made 3 points on this so far, all saying the same thing and each time missing the point.
13-a they've changed the policy since I last read read it but it still requires them to be recognized experts in the field which these are not.
13-b No I'm not. I was simply explaining the ease with which one of these sites can be whipped up and why they're not considered reliable. You can spend all the time you like on RS and V finding out why if you like. You also fail to note that two other individuals came here on your request for comment and also stated they didn't think the site should be linked to. In wikipedia thats known as consensus.
14 anyone can file a lawsuit. I could file one right now. That doesn't necessarily make my point of view notable.
15. without his parents conceiving him this wouldn't exist either. Should we talk about birth control or procreation?
16. if you have a problem with the article being neutral you should probably stop editing it right now.
17. It can be original research if it was included in the article and presented as such. However its really unnecessary since the SA page isn't a third party report and the only third party report on it states he understands why they did it.
18. I'm aware of the difference. But WP:V also has the section on self-published sources. I've also pointed you to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and I suggest you read them again before any further editing. Perhaps you should read WP:V again as well particular this section: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5] It then clarifies when these are acceptable for use both in footnote and a further paragraph. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. and Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. See e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Game_(game)_(6th_nomination) for an often-cited example deletion discussion covering this matter. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources This very clearly spells out two very limited times in which "blogs" can be used. This is not the case here. And in case you missed it, WP:V is policy.--Crossmr 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. This is like pulling teeth. Point out the contradiction. Furthermore, are you seriously denying that he criticized PayPal and that tHe Wired article indicated that he criticized it? 'You ignored the issue, AGAIN. Why delete it instead of correct it? Answer if you want anyone to assume good faith? I never once said he criticized them for freezing; from the beginning, my entire point was that it was a criticism valid for inclusion. This is the reason why I modified it to address your complaint. After I modified it, you again deleted it in its entirety. That's blatant POV pushing and whitewashing. If you believed it simply was inaccurate on the sepcifics, then you would have modified that insetad of deleting it.

2. I did change the way it was written as an attempt at compromise. You rejected it and deleted its entirety instead of modifying it. Are you going to lie and rewrite history now? I seriously expect an apology. Then after deleting it instead of correcting it, I told you to simply modify it the way you wanted to because all you did was repeat yourself. Since you were adding nothing new AFTER I attempted to modify it to your liking, I can't be psychic to know the precise phrasing you want.

3. They ARE preferred when you want to either a) get a direct quotation and/or b) express the view of a specific person or group. Third party to Wikipedia, not the thing in question. You're taking things said in GUIDELINES like "usually this is the case," then you blindly apply it like the law as if it applies in all cases. You're taking that statement completely out of context. By that logic, the U.S. Constitution shouldn't be referenced on articles of a constitutional matter, because it's a primary source. That is most definitely not meant to apply to trying to accurately represent a specific person's view--for something like that you try to quote a primary source. Y

ou know what Wired did? They got their information from the same person who wrote that page--a primary source. So again by your lgoic, we shouldn't trust Wired because they got their information from Kyanka. Let me ask you a simple question: which do you think is a better source to use when trying to figure out and/or represnt's someone's view: a) secondary source with a few quotes, or b) a primary source containing a very long quotation. And we can even include both! BTW, many of the policies overlap. Verfiability generally utilizes notable sources as reliable sources.

4. You violating te 3RR rule to prevent inclusion of a major example is prevention. I was vague by trying to include a very specific example that you were trying to exclude?

5. The source in question IS a news source, it's just not a well known one. No part of any policy requires that sources must only be news stories about that specific thing. The fact remains, a source which qualifies as reliable acknowledges many people hold a view. Specific cite proving otherwise.

6-7. No, I relied on him using the word "many." "Many" people holding a view makes that view Wikipedia-notable. I'm relying on a direct quotation from him, you're relying on speculation that he excluded something for one reason when there are other plausible reasons. Again, you're still confusing his personal idea of notability with Wikipedias. Since when does Wikipedia care whether or not a random person considers something notable by their own personal definition? I pointed out how your false dichotomy was flawed and you didn't actually address it, you just repeated yourself I refer back to my original #7 so you can defend your logical error.

8. Do you really believe that or are you saying that in bad faith? Your logic is horribly flawed--by that logic, no criticism of corporations should ever be in an article because people know what corporate criticism might be like. Your argument is essentially "Wikipedia should be as vague as possible as long as a user can imagine various possibilities which may or may not correspond with what happened." Or imagine this "other electronic payment companies exist, so why do we need to explain any more than that it's an electronic payment company"? The fact of the matter is that people aren't psychic and there are many different types of critciims a company might receive. Given how new services like PayPal are, it makes these types of criticism more unique. Please point to any policy or guideliness requiring criticism to be unique to a specific company.'

9. You still haven't explained what difference it makes if it was 2 years ago look up argumentum ad naseam). This WAS in the news. What do you call Wired? What about the class-acion lawsuit that was in many major print newspapers? OH yeah, I forgot that class-actions involve small numbers of people and no criticism.

11. There's no requirement for all cites to be from "field experts," and you have cited nothing indicating that. You are equating creating a new website with nothing on it to a website that's been around years, is much more expensive to host (due to traffic), with plenty of gathered content on the issue, forums with many users expressing their views and is very popular for its subject matter. If you think this should be diverted to antoher talk page so much, then do it yourself. I suspect that you'll ignore this difference.

12. Now that's just plain disingenuous. I tried inserting a single extra sentence and now that equates to "full, extensive news coverage"

13-a. Then cite some _SPECIFIC_ part of policy already and don't just claim "oh it supports me, take my word."

13-b. I asked you to define a self-published site and you responded specifically by saying the amount of money was a determining factor. You can't even seem to admit it when I've caught you backpedaling. Sorry, but you have no idea of the hosting costs of PayPalSucks.com and given its popularity, it's not likely to be cheap. With Google Adsense alone, you could make at least hundreds, if not thousands per month on a site like that--so go ahead, make a site as popular as that, that manages to be popular within its category.

I'll note that if you were obeying consensus, you wouldn't have repeatedly removed the sentence that different people were inserting. It wasn't until you violated 3RR that you attempted any sort of compromise. By the way, consensus doesn't work like that--2 random people dropping in, each with a single, brief comment, and not really providing Wikipedia policy/guideline based reasoning isn't consensus. Consensus REQUIRES discussion--they just dropped in a random remark of their opinion.

14. You are being dishonest again. Instead of acknowledging that there are notable lawsuits (which would mean multiple, notable criticisms)--you get on the defensive and try to imply that none of them are. First you act as if the lawsuits haven't been cited, now you're claiming that they're not notable. Sorry, but not just anyone can file a lawsuit and have it stick--if a random person came in and filed one it would have it readily dismiss. We're talking about a class action lawsuit, along with patent and other lawsuits, several of which involved settlements. The class-action one especially was published in various major newspapers. So are none of those nontable?

15. Give me a break. That is so far indirect and so far in the past. Hurrcaine Katrina was the DIRECT cause for creation of the PayPal donation account.

16. "if you have a problem with the article being neutral you should probably stop editing it right now." Cute, you not only refused to address what I said in #16, you used a personal attack in place of anything subsantive. You claim there should be another side shown, but you've made ZERO effort to ciing any sources or writing anything to show that side (because none exists that wouldn't be a violation of Wikikpedia rules). Furthermore, I have done NOTHING to hinder it.

17. So you're acknowledging it would be original research...so why did you bring it up before if it couldn't be included on Wikipedia? Are you just unable to admit you erred? Where's this ban on primary sources, again? You should go edit all the constitution articles to remove the constitution as a source! Sorry, but nowhere does Kyanka say that he understands all of their actions. The only thing that he says he agrees with is the red flagging/freezing of the account itself. Even in the Wired article its clear that he's criticizing how they handled it.

18. You should obey WP:CIVIL yourself if you're going to suggest that. I read that section onf WP:V and even referenced it directly in my prior response, did you not read what I said? What part of that even applies to PayPalSucks.com? It doesn't attempt to even define what a self-published source is beyond personal websites and blogs (and at that it's vague). This is why I asked for a specific definition from you and all you've done is make an assumption regarding PayPalSucks.com's hosting costs,which you don't know and given their popularity, is not safe to assume it's near even $20/month. I'll note that section isn't supposed to be there anyway, since WP:RS is meant to define reliable sources, not WP:V (there's actually a recent discussion on exactly that on the talk page). You should read more carefully, it doesn't offer that as if that is the only conceivable exception. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


= I have a suggestion, everyone that for some reason have a urge to add an attack page to this article because the frozen account issues, why don't just add a section where you show the readers the paypal legal agreement regarding the limitation of the accounts and let the reader use their brains on it. paypalsucks.com is an attack page. But if you quote paypal user agreement, that seems fair to me and let the reader choose what is fair and what isn't. I don't see this problem with other articles about insurance company that as well they are unfair and people have no choice by law to have them. Ntt ng 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you can't just source a policy and claim there is criticism about it. Without proper citation you result in having to use weasel words to describe the criticism and the citation obviously would not show any notability or reliability to the criticism or demonstrate that its anything but a trivial point of view. Its original research to read a policy and draw a conclusion about whether or not to label it a criticism.--Crossmr 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Response to RfC. Paypalsucks.com is too biased a website for appropriate inclusion on Wikipedia as a source and probably as a link. However, verified and reliably sourced criticism -- that is not too crufty or too narrow, should be included. Paypalsucks.com does not fit the criteria of reliable source for this purpose. --Blue Tie 01:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see an IP just added Paypalsucks.com back. There was an RfC about it some time ago? Where is it? I.e is it just the text here?--Elvey (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's correct and during which only a single indivdual felt it was appropriate to link to it but 4 didn't. IPs have been adding the link probably as long as the websites have been around, yet everytime its brought up the clear majority never feels its appropriate to link to the site.--Crossmr (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the line that is currently on the site about "gripe sites" - I apologise for doing so without reading all this discussion - I didn't appreciate how heavily the point has been debated. I was careful to make the sentence objective. I also belive it to be true. There are many popular websites providing various products and services but hard as I tried I could not find another with so many "gripe sites" and embittered complaints. I have also googled for more formal news stories on the subject, but found that, although they do exist, they are notoriously difficult to find, given the number of consumer action sites and bad reviews (that was rather my point). Also, just because something is not covered regularly in the mainstream press does not make it any less true. Admittedly, these sites are not necessarily reliable sources (quite possibly far from it) but purely by existing they are evidence of themselves. That there are so many of these sites is therefore a fact, and one I consider to be of interest. -Tim Blackwell 17:45, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Added criticism

After eBay Inc. deleted criticism in 2005 [3] and this was noticed by Wikiscanner users, I reinserted a part of the deleted criticism and added a source to prevent deletion because of it being unsourced (I think this argument was only abused to suppress criticism, as sources can easily be found and the practice of blocking accounts without needing a reason is well known) --Janschejbal 15:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Since the sources can be easily found, it behooves the person inserting the assertions to provide the sources. The one you provided isn't helpful for anything other than the specific case of the Katrina relief funds. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, to make sure it is 100% ok I changed the wording: A number of users have reported frustrating situations because the users reporting it is something that can be perfectly shown by primary sources (the users complaining in public forums). I added a google link to avoid making the link list a few pages long, if you want, direct links to the primary sources can be added, tell me how many you want to justify the wording "a numer of users" and relevance. --Janschejbal 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
A google search isn't a citation nor are vague links to sites full of self-published issues, also if sources are readily available, please provide them and make sure they meet WP:V and WP:RS. The claim has been made multiple times that these are supposedly really easy to find, but they haven't been provided. Even the one reliable one presented is a criticism of the lightest degree. The individual cited says the he understood why they didn't, but just felt they should have handled it a little better. It seems to be a criticism of their customer service. As its currently labeled the text is inflammatory. Accounts which quickly gain money are locked for investigation. Hurricane Katrina or otherwise. This article is also 2 years old which also raises the question of whether or not paypal still operates under this policy, and if they still have an exclusive deal with united way.--Crossmr 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact it would seem paypal encourages its use for charitable donations [4] [5].--Crossmr 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
They do. Here's a less inflammatory version of the Katrina story. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The story itself wasn't inflammatory, in fact I found it pretty neutral and well written. The problem was the text being used in article to describe the criticism. The person quoted wasn't criticizing them for freezing the account, he was criticizing their customer service for how they handled the closing of the account, which barely makes it notable. What company of any real size has never had a single complaint about its customer service by someone?--Crossmr 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Praise/Criticism

Customer Satisfaction

VocaLabs is the only company I've found which has conducted a survey on PayPal and released some results, although it's only an overview--not like what you'd get from a scientific study. I also don't see their methodology, so it's possible that it's not scientific. See the summary page and various PDF files which have a larger version of the graph and information which is divided across them: Newsletter 32, Newsletter 33 and Newsletter 34.

Yes, something on their practices and reputation might be useful in determining if this study is usseful in anyway. But what are you going to draw from it? Paypal like many other companies has an up and down customer service record and fits in the middle of the pack?--Crossmr 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They also have this: [6]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    So that looks like their customer service is being demonstrated as comparatively good?--Crossmr 05:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Company's Own Disclosure of Lawsuits and Regulatory Problems

It would be possible to use the SEC filings of any company required to file with the SEC for a basic disclosure about the existence of certain kinds of ciriticism. This would, at least, include lawsuits and publicly announced regulatory actions.DCDuring 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Certainly. But there's tons of stuff in SEC filings; determining the importance of individual items is a tad OR-ish. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that the company's own disclosure be copied from the SEC site to provide an authoritative basic level of disclosure. Such disclosure is usually in a standard place in the 10-K and could be found in an 8-K in a less standard way. I am interested in reducing the level of controversy about such matters. I'm going to see if anyone has any thought on this and try it out in a couple of weeks. DCDuring 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCDuring (talkcontribs)

Source Disclosure for Corporate Criticism Sites ?

Wouldn't it be useful to have some kind of external link to criticism sites, at least with some basic effort to determine whether a given criticism site was 'independent', 'competitor-supported', 'attorney-supported', or 'unknown'. DCDuring 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal crticism

I re-added this section because it both allows for reader convenience of being able to have all criticism consolidated together and to expand on the specific criticisms in the legal disputes which can be combined with non-legal ones. There's nothing inherently wrong with being up the same thing in two sections, especialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PayPal&action=edit&section=29 Editing Talk:PayPal (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedialy if it's being combined with other things covering a different aspect. Plus it wouldn't make sense to have a criticism section that doesn't so much as reference major lawsuits. It would seem that you're engaging in a hyper-conservative literary approach as an excuse to remove as much criticism as possible--everything involving criticism must be consolidated into the vaguest summary possible, but this doesn't apply to anything else

You started all this off by saying it was generous to have a single sentence for criticism and at that, I had to pull teeth to get it to say something other than "there have been complaints about their customer service." It is about time that you admit that there have been major, notable critcisms.

On that note, I'd like to know where the Google test and other related google tests were rejected by policy. Specific citations please. -Nathan J. Yoder 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to consolidate all criticism then remove the other legal issues section. We don't duplicate content within articles other than a brief summary as part of the introduction. You said you didn't want to ignore consensus, this is the consensus reached on the notability of things on the web: WP:WEB. Nowhere in there is the google test. You're free to propose it once again and see how long it lasts though.--Crossmr 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The focus of them is different. One is about the criticism itself and the other is about the legal issues surrounding it. I'm glad you acted in good faith, deleting my addition right away, claiming a talk existed when it didn't and now simply reverted it again, repeating what you already said and ignoring that I said. Just remember to not violate 3RR again.
Nowhere in there is the Google test or any related tests prohibited. That's simply not how Wikipedia works "it's automatically prohibited unless a policy page says that it's allowed." So I see that consensus doesn't support you at all and that on the contrary, it does allow me to do what I want. Ironically, it even links to the Wikipedia search engine test page and even an essay saying that WP:WEB is too strict, in addition to the direct acknowledgment that occasional exceptions are ok (even if it were prohibited). Please try to act in good faith--you repeatedly link to things that don't at all say what you claim they say. -Nathan J. Yoder 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The google test was once included in the notability guidelines for web items and it was removed because a consensus was formed that determined it wasn't reliable. The fact that it was there and no longer is is indication it doesn't have the support of the members. If you think you can make a case for it, feel free to propose and give your reasoning. Article talk pages are not the place for discussing changes to guidelines and policies their respective talk pages are.--Crossmr 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you read WP:NOT regarding a bureaucracy, yet? I can play that game--going by what the sub-guideline actually says--WP:WEB is a NOTABILITY, not a reliability/verifiability guideline, and as such is for the purpose of inclusion of an article about a website, not using a website as a source.
I can also disprove your argument via other means (read Negation theory). I was a part of those debates--consensus wasn't formed that it was unreliable, rather, there was a lack of consensus concerning its reliability so it wasn't included. You should probably take the linking of the search engine test and even an essay on WEB being too strict as a hint that there is a strong contingent of support, even if consensus wasn't formed. That doesn't mean it's prohibited and it never has, otherwise Wikipedians would be completely and utterly unable to form anything new, from writing styles to organizational methods, without first creating a new policy/guideline for it. Can you please show me the policy on Wikipedia showing that something is not allowed unless a gudieline or policy explicitly allows it? Because that seems quite contrary to the whole spirit of Wikipedia. Again, read WP:NOT. Local consensus on article pages is FREQUENTLY used, especially when there is an issue over interpretation of rules and/or application of an exception so even if things were forbidden by default, the guidelines allowing for exception allows this.
For future reference, don't keep claiming things are policy if you aren't willing to back it up. You say "it's policy, so I'm right," the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, trying to decide everything based on your own circular defintions and hyper literal, personalized interpretation of the letter of policy (via a default prohibition mentality) is not only against Wikipedia policy, but it is onyl incredibly counter-productive in terms of writing an encyclopedia, because it creates a type of thought-terminating cliche whereby you can't actually justify something on its own merits (which is required for consensus), you just defer to "it's in the rules somewhere." -Nathan J. Yoder 03:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Its quite simple. When consensus is reached to expand policy to cover additional things, it gets added to the policy page. If someone is trying to make a case to use a kind of source, or write an article a kind of way and they succeed, that new consensus finds its way in to the policy or guideline. Especially in regards to something like WP:V and WP:RS. They're constantly contested because people want to try and get around them to say all kinds of things in all kinds of articles. So yes, there is lots of good faithed reasons to believe that if its not in WP:V or WP:RS there is no consensus for that particular type of source, etc. If you can demonstrate the consensus please do so. The burden is also on you to present evidence supporting the inclusion. For example, provide debates on other article talk pages where sites of similar stature were debated and a consensus for their inclusion was reached. You don't get an automatic bye on presenting evidence because you went first. You haven't shown me anything that demonstrates this sites are remotely reliable other than your own word and calling them "inherently verifiable".--Crossmr 03:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, can you have a single response where you don't ignore a main point? Let's reiterate, shall we? It's a guideline (not policy) on notability, not reliability. Even at that, it is for inclusion of an article on a website, not simply notability of a website for inclusion as a source. The requirements of the latter are less. You need to make up your mind, in the past you suggested that notability and reliability didn't overlap like this, now they do. Please specify your true stance. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive (see WP:NOT). Now you are suggesting that they're prescriptive and that if it doesn't list something, it is by default prohibited. Again, I have to repeat myself because you ignored this--even this NOTABILITY guideline links to the search test and I have seen lots of support for it when I was involved in the formation of WP:WEB. You're dealing with a sub-guideline concerning a different subject, so to suggest that this is prescriptive and requires an large consensus in favor of this method to use it _AT ALL_ in any articles is ludicrous, especially considering it has built in exceptions and...links to the search test page.
You seem to want to shift the burden of everything off yourself--when it's repeatedly established that you're making false claims regarding what policy is. It seems you want me to carry the brunt of the work whenever you are the one making the positive claim--"this is policy," and yet, you've failed to prove that. And again, another thing you still ignored is the built in exceptions, which by definition means that it is not a default prohibition--in other words, all that is needed is a local consensus. Go read IntelliTXT. Note that it includes criticism from *gasp* a blogger. But why was it included? Because he authors one of the most popular blogs (i.e. a highly notable blog), which makes his views on advertising in blogs notable. I bet you'll race over there to change it to convince yourself that it somehow makes you right, even though you're going against consensus for that page and the obvious that that a top blogger might just have a notable opinion on blogs. You never bother finding supporting evidence of precedent or consensus in articles supporting any of your points, even though you've stated mulitple times now that various guidelines/policies supported you, but I was generous enough to find it for you even though it wasn't necessary.
How about this? We actually attempt to debate whether or not it is reliable, instead of you falling back on circular reasoning. PayPalSucks.com is a popular website of its kind. That, by definition, establishes notability. Remember, all we are establishing is taht certain views are notable, this has nothing to o with how true they are (NPOV forbids using veracity for inclusion criteria) or even the quality of the website.
Are you going to argue that a popular criticism website doesn't indicate that those criticisms are common (i.e. notable for inclusion)? It's in the top hits when searching for paypal criticism. Alexa rank: 67k; Page Rank: 5/10; Google hits for it: 41k; Number of non-forum pages (approx): 6.7k; Number of forum posts: 70k; Number of forum users: 38k. News articles mentioning the site (not an exhaustive search): [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12] (whether or not these websites consider paypalsucks.com good is irrelevant to its Wikipedia notability--notability is just how well known a site is, not how well liked it is). Cease and desist notice from PayPal to PayPalsucks.com. (A random unrelated link I found for my reference [13]).-Nathan J. Yoder 06:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No they don't. There is no evidence given as to the reliability of these complaints and what percentage of the users they represent. The number of members, etc is immaterial. Random person X making a post in a forum has never been considered reliable on wikipedia. You contributed to web notability 2 years ago. As I mentioned above the search engine test used to be in, but no longer is. Your claim that you saw some editors talk favourably about it 2 years ago doesn't counter that. Maybe you should read notability again, trivial mentions, i.e. "if you read paypalsucks you'll never want to use it again" are trivial mentions and do nothing to establish notability. 2 of the links you provided are duplicate stories. The site has never been the focus of an article by a reliable source. A couple of quotes in large articles doesn't make notability. The digg article supports nothing. Anyone can digg that and say whatever they want on it without proof. its not like individuals haven't been caught gaming digg in the past. A few trivial mentions doesn't make the site notable, not that that would have a bearing on its reliability. The existence of a blog over at the intellitext article means nothing unless that link was actually debated in to the article. There are a lot of articles on wikipedia and content sitting in other articles unchallenged doesn't mean it was accepted. Just means someone didn't notice it. happens all the time. I've seen vandalism sitting in some articles for months that no one caught. Doesn't mean we throw WP:VAND out the window. As far as that link goes, it was convenient added only a couple days ago, and in fact it was already removed once because someone felt it didn't belong, and as they properly pointed out, its personal opinion of the blogger.There was no debate over the link. It wasn't included for any of the reasons you stated at all. in fact there is nothing on the talk page or edit summaries that would remotely support what you said.I asked you for evidence showing links of equal stature were debated on other article talk pages and then included. Not a random link was added by an IP to an article.--Crossmr 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You're acting in bad faith again. This is like when you removed the entire mention of an incident instead of correcting it. That "personal opinion of a blogger" is tactually the personal opinion of the guy who runs Engadget, one of the most popular blogs on the internet, with millions of readers. You removed it without even knowing what engadged is, didn't you? Just admit it. FYI: when something is unsourced, you mark it as such and ask for citations, you don't just remove it all, that is against de facto Wikipedia practice. It is not required for me to link to another discussion and you know it--all that's needed is local consensus at most and no, I'm not going to bend over backwards finding you some article such as this when you're just going to modify your standards again if I do. Act in good faith and I might feel more inclined. Feel free to provide evidence that it's required. Every time I meet one of your standards of evidence, you arbitrarily increase the standards. Since when do we need statistics on the number of users they represent? #1 By that logic, you can't ever put something in an article without a scientific opinion poll. Point to the rules requiring scientific opinion polls to insert a certain opinion--a requirement that we know the percentage of people holding various views.' #2 At the very least, it meets EL guidelines, as it's mentioned by various independent news sources. #3 What you are saying is that being popular doesn't make a site notable. IF you don't believe the evidence I provided establishes popularity for this type of site, then support your argument isntead of just asserting yourself to be true. #4 You refused to address that you're confusing notability and reliability guidelines and the fact that WP:WEB is for inclusion of articles with a site as the focus of the article, not for the source of a few quotes or a link. The standard for getting an entire article is very different than the standard for just a link or inclusion of a few sentences. #5 Getting that many hits on Digg isn't easy. Getting that page and alexa rank isn't easy. Getting that many mentions in independent news sources isn't easy. Combine all of these together, consider them as a whole--do you HONESTLY think that this is comparable to some random website by Joe Blow? You're being disingenuous--you're refusing to acknowledge the difference between getting a website posted somwhere and it being popular. #6 What is SPECIFICALLY required to get a single link (EL) put on a page? I'm curious, since you're so vague and seem to want to say "nope that doesn't mee the standard I never specified." #7 Since you're being non-compliant, are acting in good faith, are removing information instead of correcting it or asking for citations and are deliberately ignoring major points I'm making because they don't suit you, I'll ignore everything you sayu ntil you're willing ot act in good faith again, unless I need to. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with Engadget, I've read dozens of articles off that site. But there is no evidence that that person was an expert in the field of online advertising. There is no defacto practice on wikipedia of tagging things and leaving them in articles. In fact from WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. and Any edit lacking a source may be removed.... You can object all you want, but if you want material included you're required to provide a source. As well as here seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, That couldn't be any clearer. My point about the number of users was that you've done nothing to show that that views represented on that page are a non-trivial view point. Read WP:NPOV under undue weight. You want the material included you have to demonstrate its not that. Getting that many hits on Digg isn't easy So what? Its a user submitted, unmoderated place. This will never be considered reliable by wikipedia.--Crossmr 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Citing something as a criticism requires demonstration that its a non-trivial viewpoint. Simply citing the paypal page and then editorializing about it fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You can cite random user X from a forum on wikipedia and call it reliable.--Crossmr 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting how you never brought up EL--you ignored that--even though PayPalSucks has numerous links to it--that at least makes it notable for a link. Your point about the numbers was that you didn't mean what you actually said (that a precentage is needed)? The number of users does help demonstrate that it's a non-trivial viewpoint, genius. Nice backpedal. I'll add that to the list of other times that you've backpedaled and changed what you said (for example, Kyanka wasn't criticzing anything, that no notable criticism existed outside of his [even though the legal seciotion had existed forever]). It's "de facto," not "defacto." Please look up de facto to make sure you know what it means. I'll point out more bad faith: you took the word "may" to mean "must." "May" simply means you're authorized to do it, not that it's a good idea to automatically do it (doing it blindly without thinking about it). You give editors a reasonable amount of time to find a source-leaving it in encourages others to help find it too because they see it tagged as such, plus you don't have to require them to keep a special talk page copy of it. You had no point about the number of users except to say "nyah nyah they don't count get me a scientific opinion poll." That's a large forum, which makes it far, far from just some random site a user put up overnight--and yet, you're continuing to use an argument based on it being that. Sorry, but until you can demonstrate the requirement for a scientific opinion poll, I'll continue assuming bad faith. I see more argumentum ad nauseam, more of you refusing to clarify what the specific requirements actually are (this is inherent bad faith--you can't ask about something and be vague about it)...I even created a special section for that. Here's a hint: Wikipedia has NEVER required a opinion polls, and in fact, it doesn't even require specific numbers of users holding a viewpoint, but I've given you that and more. When you're willing to present the actual specific criteria or address what I say, tell me. :) -Nathan J. Yoder 06:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The size of the forum is immaterial. Random user postings in a forum have never been reliable. using them to draw a conclusion about whether or not something is a notable criticism of a subject is original research. There is no custom of always tagging material and leaving it. The policy is quite clear. If you have some other policy which states we should just tag it and let unsourced material hang out, please feel free to cite it.--Crossmr 12:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Size determines notability. How else are you going to determine notability without an assessment of how well known or popular something is? The whole implication of something being news articles, for example, is that it's a popular enough subject to be covered, making it notable. All you're doing is repeatin "it's immaterial" without specifying why. I'm not suggesting relying on random user postings, I'm suggesting using the forum as a whole to gauge the notability of the website PayPalSucks.com--I'm not quoting from it. If there is no custom, then why do so many articles have those tags? Why would the tags even exist in the first place if the statements that are tagged would be immediately deleted? That makes no sense. I expect you to ignore that refutation of your taggint statments. BTW, can you for once try justifying your statements like I do? All you've basically done is rephrase what I've said to make it negative (e.g. adding "No, it is not true that [insert what I said.").-Nathan J. Yoder 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And notability has nothing to do with reliability. This was already explained to you on your talk page by another user. But I will repeat it again he fact that a discussion board may be notable (based on Alexa, Google, third party references, et cetera) does not make it also a reliable source. If any random person can post any random thing there then that posting is no more a reliable source than any posting on any other forum. Any random person can write any random thing. There is no independent fact checking. Therefore its an unreliable source. Some people tag, some people remove. Some people tag for 3 days and then remove. Many people do many different things. The policy is quite clear. The fact is, the material has been challenged and you're required to provide proper sources for it for it to be left in the article per WP:V. If you continue to restore it without providing proper sources you will continue to violate policy and it will be removed.--Crossmr 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I responded to that. If you're willing to debate it, instead of just repeat your viewpoint, then go ahead. I'm waiting for your counter-argument to my last response. Independent fact checking isn't a requirement for anything, otherwise the fact checking for newspapers would become invalid, because newspapers check their own facts. I'll repeat my last response since you didn't address it. You have made no argument against WP:EL here and since you've conceded that the site is notable and relevant, I'd like to hear why a link couldn't be included in the external links section. Beyond that, I never said I was going to quote what a forum member said, please stop engaging in that straw man argument. I said that I was going to use the forum to include the general types of criticisms that exist (e.g. criticisms existing over freezing accounts) and such and this website helps establish that those criticisms are notable AND you've already conceded that users are allowed to assess commonality of a viewpoint for the purposes of due weight and my assessment here demonstrates that this criticism is common enough to include under undue weight. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

crossmr's specific criteria for adding criticism

This is where crossmr will insert his criteria for adding criticism. I put this here because he's flooding the other section which is supposed to be about legal criticism and stopped addressing my statements as such. I've added things based on what he's said and I can quote him if necessary, because he will likely backpedal. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

SPECIFIC criteria for inclusion of a link and/or some statements regarding opinions:

  1. Must include an opinion poll showing the percentage of people who know about it or agree with a view in the case of statements for an opinion.
  2. Must be the focus of multiple, mainstream articles.
  3. Must have more than high rankings in search engines. The search engine test is forbidden even though no rules specify that it is and exceptions never apply.
  4. Consensus regarding similar issues is needed in multiple, other Wikipedia articles, not just this one.
  5. Rules are prescriptive, not descriptive and WP:NOT (which states such) isn't worth acknowledging for (insert reason).
  6. All statements are to be removed until all of the criteria in this category is met--using "[citation needed]" is not necessary
The biggest concern for adding criicism is that it's verifiable from a reliable source. From the policy on verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
Also from verifiability:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." --Rocksanddirt 18:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And do you feel that user comments in a forum meet WP:V and WP:RS?--Crossmr 14:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No, wikipedia guidelines specifically say not --Neon white 00:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Article is now protected for one week. Please try and find common ground, and if you cannot do that alone, seek help from other editors by pursuing the dispute resolution process. If you are ready to resume editing before the protection expires, or to contest this protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is good, I want to get other people involved in debate. I've added an RFC a while back and tried commenting on other talk pages about this too. I hope crossmr tries to do some work himself and actually try to get people involved, so I don't have to do everything. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Important and not-so-important issues

I think it is important to state clearly in the article that it describes the Paypal service as it is in the US. Paypal policy in other countries (Germany, for example) is, in part, significantly different from the one described in the article, especially when non-eBay purchases are concerned. Personally, I consider issues like these much more important than the question if a real person is involved or not when a money transfer is cancelled. After all, a mistake is a mistake, no matter how exactly it was made. --217.232.224.10 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging sections for unsourced material

I am moving this particular argument here. Since I made the last reply in the thread regarding tagging (explaining that tagging and removing defeats the purpose of them). Crossmr, please defend your argument that tagging and removing right after tagging doesn't defeat the purpose of tagging. All you've done is stated that this is what you do. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the paypal article page is not the place to discuss the general behaviour of why some people tag articles, why some remove right away, why some do both, etc. You've already been cited the text from the relevant policy if you want to discuss its merits feel free to do so on its talk page.--Crossmr 05:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just ran across this dispute during my biweekly review of the mess at Requests for arbitration. As an experienced Wikipedia editor (who shot the photo for this article, by the way), I concur with Crossmr's position and oppose Njyoder's position. Njyoder has demonstrated a pattern of reliance on unreliable sources to support highly controversial assertions (whose controversial nature requires them to be cited to highly reliable and verifiable sources). For an example of a properly researched article based on reliable and verifiable sources, see my work at Lawyer. --Coolcaesar 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, you're posting in the wrong section. I also suggest that you read through the talk pages instead of just relying on crossmr's biased representation on the arbitration page. Just as an example, he tried lying about me violating 3RR, while downplaying him doing it himself. If you want to understand crossmr's viewpoint, this all started by crossmr trying to argue that no criticism should be included _at all_ and that one sentence was generous. It's more complex than he makes it seem, hence you need to read all of the talk page.
Crossmr, that's just an excuse to not defend a viewpoint that you have realized you are unable to defend, but want to continue utilizing nonetheless. There is no official policy or guideline on tagging methods/etiquette, because it's a de facto standard, not a de jure standard. All you've stated is that "this is how I do it," which is counter-productive and counter-consensus. Do you really think it's proper Wikipedia etiquette to refuse to even discuss standards of how to deal with the articles that you're editing on?
You have done absolutely nothing to defend the practice of tagging and removing immediately afterward, because it makes no sense. Removing it without tagging would at least make some sense, even if it were bad practice. Tags exist to alert people that information exists which needs citation and does so two ways: a notice in the article itself and by adding it to a category of uncited articles. By removing the tag right after placing it, you're removing its only two methods of serving its purpose, thereby defeating the purpose. Can you concede this? If you can, I can move on to why things should be left in the article for a while instead of removing without tagging.
Also, I've tried copying things to other pages before (like with the RS talk page) and you came in and dishonestly just repeated your original viewpoints multiple times (which everyone already knew), without debating (i.e. defending the merits of your viewpoints) anything. Even if I changed talk pages, what single reason would I have to believe that you'd debate it? -Nathan J. Yoder 06:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:TALK Please read the talk page guidelines. Article talk pages are for discussions centered around improvements and changes to be made to that specific article. I cited you the policy for removing it. When I refer to "tagging and remove" I'm referring to the practice of tagging and removing a "reasonable" amount of time after. That can be anywhere from 3 days - 2 weeks for some people. Not tagging and immediately removing. If you want to discuss this practice further find the relevant policy page and do so, I'd be happy to continue it there. Its WP:V.--Crossmr 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Tagging is an issue that concerns changes made to the article, obviously. I already explained how that isn't the relevant talk page, as WP:V has nothing to do with tagging etiquette. Please demonstrate otherwise. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:V under burden of evidence discusses verifiability and how to handle unsourced statements, including tagging. Tagging is a general discussion which isn't specific to this article it effects all articles.--Crossmr 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I came over from the Request for Comment, and the discussion here is so voluminous that I have no idea where to comment, so I'll start a new section. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a Criticisms section, if it is well-cited with reliable sources (I would not include PayPalsucks.com as a reliable source; they're obviously coming from a biased point of view on this subject). There are many legitimate criticisms of Paypal that I've heard through the years and to say that none should appear in the article seems odd to me.--Gloriamarie 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

that's kind of the issue. The discussion wasn't about the existence of the section, but using proper sources and avoiding sensationalist and other inflammatory writing in the creation of it.--Crossmr 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above, anti-paypal sites are not reliable sources and should not be cited. They are original research and not verified in any way. Arcticles like this http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,101525-page,1/article.html and http://money.guardian.co.uk/consumerissues/story/0,,1450350,00.html are reliable and i dont see why info about lawsuits cannot be included. --Neon white 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the PC World one is well over five years old, and a bit stale, I'd think. The Guardian one seems like it might be useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I included it laregely because it metions the law suits which i think are relevant even if they were 5 years ago, though there should be better sources on those. --Neon white 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was, because you had previously suggested that even making the section one sentence was generous and fought vigorously to keep it one sentence. When I tried adding more than one sentence, you repeatedly removed it on the grounds of semantics and instead of rephrasing it, you removed it entirely. I can even quote you: "Since there is no reliable criticism of the subject, it becomes a trivial viewpoint." You could at least be honest about it, even if you disagree. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research and unsourced claims...

... cannot be kept in an article if challenged. See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And editorializing on a fact can't be done without a reliable source having done so first.--Crossmr 14:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

History

Can someone verify that Paypal also played a part in the adult fillm industry before 1999, i.e. website on videos pointed to payment via this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.153.94 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It would have been quite a stunt, since PayPal came into existance in March, 2000, and the predecessor companies started in December 1998 and March 1999, leaving at most one month "before 1999". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr that Elvey is trying to insert original research

Elvey impudently removed my photo of PayPal HQ, which I just reinserted. As far as PayPal's concerned (see their About Us page), they're still headquartered in San Jose. Obviously Elvey is not used to dealing with the corporate world.

In fact, most corporations have most of their operations located somewhere else but their headquarters. But that doesn't change the fact of where their headquarters is. For example, the vast majority of AMC Theatres' 21,000 associates will never see the Kansas City headquarters nor will they will ever have any reason to go near Kansas City. But that doesn't change the fact that Kansas City dictates how they are hired, the conditions under which they work, and the amounts they are paid. Same thing with PayPal. It may be true that most of their operations are in Omaha, but it's the high-paid executives in San Jose who pull the strings and control the money. --Coolcaesar 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT I ACTUALLY DID.
You wrote: "that is neither a proper citation method nor does it support the editorializing. You also removed content which has a reference."
This is nonsense. The citation is entirely clear, additional citations you call improper were simply supplementary; the initial one was entirely adequate, and you removed paraphrased quotations straight from ebay pages THAT WASN'T EDITORIAL AT ALL. Nice move. IN CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED, THE CONTENT I INITIALLY PUT BACK WAS ORIGINALLY DELETED BY SOMEONE AT EBAY. THAT'S WHAT ORIGINALLY MOTIVATED ME TO PUT IT BACK. FURTHERMORE, YOU REMOVED NEW CONTENT I ADDED THAT WASN'T EDITORIAL. VERY VERY SLOPPY.--Elvey 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
So that means that "that citation doesn't give you license to analyze and present point of view on that policy" was a false and groundless accusation, since it was SOMEONE ELSE'S content I was just restoring (and later improving). --Elvey 05:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Okay, Elvey deleted it again, but I was too busy with law and motion practice to check up on Wikipedia until now. I've countermanded that edit. If this happens again, I am happy to take Elvey through the dispute resolution process. Please see User:Ericsaindon2 for what happened to the last editor I encountered who persistently refused to conform his edits to official policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I also suspect that Elvey may be engaging in trolling in violation of WP:TROLL.
I will note for the record that Elvey claimed to have already defended his/her position in the edit summary on this talk page, but as everyone can see, there was no reply to my post above.--Coolcaesar 05:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a repeated lie. I claimed they had been defended. You claimed they hadn't. I hadn't defend them, and didn't claim that I had. You claimed they hadn't, yet you'd been part of the attack. "Why are the critical sites being deleted?" has multiple posts from Crossmr! http://consumerist.com/consumer/leaks/302-phone-numbers-to-reach-a-human-at-paypal-307621.php" did you miss? I already called you out for misrepresenting my statements. Perhaps because of a failure to look closely enough at the archive page or what I actually wrote, you made a false accusation. It WAS defended there, not by me.Here, etc. --Elvey 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here you go doing it again. Is libel a habit of yours? Stop it. Contrary to your latest claim, I did NOT say they weren't headquartered in San Jose. And you're saying a deletion was insertion of original research. What utter hogwash. "it's the high-paid executives in San Jose who pull the strings and control the money" appears to be original research. While ebay's CxOs are probably not in Omaha, what beyond that do you have evidence of, re. PayPal? You want to put back a picture that misleadingly suggests the company operates primarily out of N First street, fine. I give up; pollute away. Caught you in another lie. That user was banned for being a sock puppet master. I haven't investigated, but I'll bet you drove a major contributor out of the community. Created puppets to defend his edits from the likes of you, I'll bet.

Wow. That's just totally silly of you to accuse me of lying when you didn't even bother to investigate the underlying facts. If you had read the request for arbitration I filed for Ericsaindon2, you would have realized that the primary reason (which the committee accepted) for banning Ericsaindon2 WAS his overwhelmingly well-documented tendency (as indicated through dozens of edits which I cited to in the original request) to insert original research, biased statements, and unverifiable statements with no citations to reliable sources. The sockpuppetry was secondary but was also a major factor.
Not according to what's on his page now.--Elvey 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
And you were lying when you claimed that I falsely claimed that critical sites and external links had been defended on the talk pages. I hadn't defend them, and didn't claim that I had. You claimed they hadn't been defended, yet you'd been part of the attack. "Why are the critical sites being deleted?" and the section above it have multiple posts from Crossmr!
Turning to the merits, Consumerist.com is not a reliable, stable or verifiable source in compliance with WP:RS or WP:V. Citing an online forum is nearly as silly as citing a USENET post or a MySpace page as a source. For all of those sources, there's no independent editor acting as an filter between the act of writing and the act of publication. The skill of identifying reliable sources is usually taught in the first or second year of college at most decent universities.
I'm citing an article, not a forum post. Consumerist.com has both articles and user posts. You are really pissing me of now --Elvey 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, to resolve this issue, I have just dug up some proper reliable sources on InfoTrac OneFile, ProQuest eLibrary, and sfgate.com, which I will be adding to the article shortly. Most libraries (that is, the ones with an adequate tax base) allow users to access those databases from home, you know. --Coolcaesar 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The article I just added from the Omaha World-Herald (accessed through ProQuest eLibrary) specifically states that "[Senior Vice President Ryan Downs] now works on a project at corporate headquarters in San Jose, Calif." So even the local newspaper in Omaha is aware that Omaha is merely a branch office and PayPal HQ is really in San Jose. ProQuest is available at nearly all North American public libraries. --Coolcaesar 23:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
So ONE SVP is there now? Doesn't seem to prove the point at all. But as I said, pollute away. --Elvey 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: you labeled my last edit as vandalism. Whatever it was, it wasn't that. How dare you? Are you looking for or do you have gig as a corporate Public Relations shill? --Elvey 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Note for English language learners: "Are you looking for or do you have gig as a corporate Public Relations shill?" is not a statement about Coolcaesar. Not that NPA violations are ever justified, but a false vandal insult would be relatively good justification, if I had violated NPA.
Assuming bad faith that we're not native english speakers is also a policy violation. WP:AGF. Whether you directly call someone an insult or instead just ask them if they're said insult doesn't make it any less of an insult and doesn't make it any less uncivl. If you have a problem with the way someone has done some address it properly. Using uncivil language, making personal attacks and other things of that nature isn't an appropriate response.--Crossmr 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You're blanking sourced NPOV material. I repeatedly have to correct your false claims : I had to point out:"I'm citing an article, not a forum post.", "Paraphrasing the policy isn't OR. It's paraphrasing, which is explicitly encouraged (in order to avoid copyright violations)." Your statements are repeatedly an unapologetically libelous. You agreed to leaving 3 critical consumer sites up, but haven't honored your commitment. --Elvey (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Paraphrasing when you change the meaning isn't encouraged. I made that statement 16 months ago. Obviously my opinion changed since then. As far as I know as far as I know I haven't labeled any your edits as vandalism, certainly not your last one. I just quickly checked back to mid-september and I haven't labeled anyone's edits as vandalism in that time.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism accusation in question was Coolcaesar's; indentation confusion. I long ago pointed out removed paraphrased quotations straight from ebay pages where I hadn't changed the meaning at all. You deny it now? Well, it wasn't obvious your opinion changed. But I see you just reverted the anon paypalsucks add, without even an edit summary. --Elvey (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes because reverting that particular link is something that happens on a weekly and often daily basis. The talk has discussed it to death, its not something that needs excessive explanation at this time.--Crossmr (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of any of the specifics of the criticism pages. Lets give 72 hours if someone who's interested in them wants to pick 2 or 3 of the most notable ones they can do so, otherwise I'll try and do it, but no guarentees I pick the best 3.--Crossmr 07:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Entire article violates NPOV

I find/feel there's been a concerted effort to misrepresent the Co. and the nature of critical links (as not appropriate for reference) and remove neutral links like http://www.epinions.com/finc-Financial_Services-Online-Bills-PayPal/display_~reviews/pp_~1/sort_~date/sort_dir_~des/sec_~opinion_list#list and critical links like http://www.fuckpaypal.net, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PayPal&diff=prev&oldid=170911328; Paypalsux.com, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_sanction_noticeboard&diff=156257660&oldid=156222656#Proposal_to_ban_User:Crossmr_and_User:Njyoder_from_PayPal_and_Talk:PayPal; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PayPal&diff=169429265&oldid=169318755 despite the efforts of several to discuss the issues and achive NPOV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PayPal/Archive_1#External_links_.3D_spam.3F, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PayPal/Archive_1#Why_are_the_critical_sites_being_deleted.3F that I've been unable to resolve; if all critical links are considered 'attack sites', then a NPOV violation is nigh inevitable. The very selection and omission of external links is far from NPOV. All in-article criticism except for one anecdotal (and relatively well-resolved) case has been removed. "Newspaper articles have reported that disgruntled customers who have been unable to contact anyone at PayPal to resolve their disputes have created their own website providing consumers with difficult-to-find customer service numbers and reporting their own frustrations with PayPal's service. According to these accounts, PayPal has a backlog of over 100,000 unanswered customer complaints, a fact that has led the Better Business Bureau to revoke its seal of approval." - http://pub.bna.com/eclr/021227.htm There are also misrepresentations on :Talk of what attack sites are, in the context of Wikipedia policy (e.g. the policy definition is specific/narrow, and none of the sites mentioned come close to attacking Wikipedia/Wikipedians, which is required by the definition in policy. The record over the past year and a half shows that efforts to achieve consensus between successive editors have repeatedly failed. For example, having my words misrepresented and mis-characterized repeatedly has led directly to an escalation of animosity and made efforts at resolution of the issue increasingly unfriendly, difficult and complex, but I see that several others have tried before me and encountered similar obstacles in discussions largely with Crossmr. --Elvey (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It's easy. Find a reliable source regarding Paypal's shortcomings, and the whole issue with the "fucks" and "sucks" sites will just go away. There are plenty of consumer magazines; at least one should be usable. Those sites simply aren't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I concur with Jpgordon and strongly disagree with Elvey. For example, I was the person who found the citation to the USA Today article to support the assertion that Fry's Electronics has customer service problems. If you want to put controversial information into an article, you need to make the time to find reliable sources to support it. If PayPal is really as bad as you seem to think it is, some reporter, working for one of the thousands of English-speaking periodicals in the world, will have written at least one article about it. And good articles from respectable periodicals are easy to find. See Wikipedia:Article development for advice on where to find sources. Of course, if you live in the middle of nowhere 200 miles from the closest decent library (e.g., Tonopah, Nevada or Point Barrow), then you might have a problem.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can the bad sites not be posted...

Why can only Promotional non informational sites that promote PayPal against everything including the media and promote its use be posted? Are advertisements allowed to be posted? A pro PayPal Puff piece is hardly a natural point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit Fixer (talkcontribs) 11:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to sign before I posted, thank you for adding that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit Fixer (talkcontribs) 11:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand why jpgordon is still allowed editorial licence on this subject; he works or has worked for eBay which owns PayPal. Does this explain his vehement and stringent application of source rules to discussion of this particular company - rules which certainly have not been applied to other corporate entries in Wikipedia? If jpgordon does not recuse himself, he must certainly be excluded - Alex Clarke

  • If other corporate entries are insufficiently sourced, they should be fixed; feel free to do so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Jpgordon. Regardless of whether User:Jpgordon has a conflict of interest, that does not change the fact that nearly all of the negative sites which certain users have been trying to add links to in recent months are unreliable sources. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither jpgordon nor Coocaesar address my point: why is jpgordon allowed editorial control on a subject where he has or has had a financial interest? I am deeply suspicious that his vehement cheerleading for PayPal and, my own interpretation of his tone, snide traducing of its critics flow from this interest rather than his declared motive of insuring that only comments about PayPal that come from unusually stringent sources be allowed to appear. I know he won't me asking; jpgordon, can you tell us if you are actually getting some kind of payment - or in the recent past, have received payment - either in cash or kind or some other type of value from PayPal or any company associated with PayPal? Many thanks.90.206.218.87 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Alex Clarke 7 Dec

  • (a) I have no "editorial control"; I have an opinion regarding what sort of sources are appropriate, which is shared by the consensus of editors on this article (and apparently by the Wikipedia community as a body). I just happen to get here first when improper edits arise. (b) I've been retired since May 2002, before eBay purchased PayPal, and have not been connected with either PayPal or its parent since then; 99% of my eBay employee stock options have been disposed of, and the remainder is earmarked for a charitable trust, primarily dedicated to arts and cultural development in rural Kern County, California, and to a lesser degree in Las Vegas, NV and New York City. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Public Relations Problems

I deleted the "public relations problems" section because it is unencyclopedic, unsourced, and it sounds as if somebody has simply copied and pasted some text from PayPal's public relations website. Furthermore, it repeats itself about 3 times and contains very little useful information, apart from the fact that gripe sites against paypal exist. This fact is hardly notable (there are gripe sites for all major companies) can be mentioned in a sentence. A whole paragraph is not necessary. Cambrasa (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tags

... are not weapons to assert one's viewpoint. If there are specific concerns about NPOV, discuss them in talk. These tags have been there for way to long and without efforts made to explain the reasons for these tags. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, that was a banned user editing anonymously. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    if thats the case and it looks rather obvious and the IP is long term (at least 6 weeks) it should be blocked.--Crossmr 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

PayPal IBAN and BIC information?

According to [14]:

3. With effect from 1 July 2003, institutions shall indicate on statements of account of each customer, or in an annex thereto, his IBAN and the institution's BIC.

The word "institution" is defined as

(e) "institution" means any natural or legal person which, by way of business, executes cross-border payments;

which means that PayPal is an "institution" as defined in this EU treaty.

I've never seen an IBAN or a BIC anywhere on the statements for my account at the bank (read: institution) PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. & Cie, S.C.A. Does that mean that this bank is breaking against the law? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

MercadoPago

Should MercadoPago be mentioned here somewhere? It is owned by a subsidiary to eBay, so it is somewhat related to PayPal, and it works in the same way as PayPal, only you need one account per country you wish to send payments to. MercadoPago is a kind of South American version of PayPal.

eBay also operates similar alternatives to PayPal in other countries, working basically in the same way. For example, India has PaisaPay. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

How to improve

Well?

-Bordello (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect it for starters. Every other edit lately is someone having to revert vandalism. --MartinezMD (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - edit warring - jpgordon, l0b0t, BloodDoll, Barek, IPs, etc.

A mixture of well sourced and poorly sourced content was edit-warred over. That's not a valid excuse for someone with a WP:COI and super powers such as yourself, jpgordon, removing criticism wholesale (example 1 above example 2), in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, AFAIK. I'd like to see more emphasis on RS in the criticism section, such as from the "Assessing Criticism of PayPal" article, which I think demonstrates the kind of NPOV this article needs. Some of this content is definitely redeemable or already compliant with WP:RS. Items 1 and 2 seem close IMO, 3 is probably not true, but if it is, a site monitor would be an excellent RS. 4 & 5 are far from NPOV and need RS. 6: ???. Agreed?--Elvey (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a grand total of 2 edits to this article...ever. 1 edit in August 2008 to remove some linkspam and 1 edit on 02 Feb 2009 to insert a maintenance tag. Accordingly, I have stricken through my name on your little list of "edit warriors" and advise you to be aware of our policy concerning good faith and ask that in future you be a little more diligent in your research before you start accusatory talk page threads. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I interpret this as being part of an edit war. You did insert a maintenance tag, but at the same time deleted the large block of text in question, thereby reverting another's edit. I just looked at the definition and found "An edit war occurs when contributors, or groups of contributors, repeatedly revert each other's contributions." I can't apologize for or retract what still appears to me to be a valid accusation, but you might want to consider taking such actions. I see you claim the content you removed is linkspam. We can respectfully disagree on these points, I hope - AGF and all. If I have reason to believe you were unaware of the edit war, and recognize that you marked a far-from-minor edit as minor, then I will reconsider my edit war accusation. Please let me know if that's the case.--Elvey (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Your interpretation is incorrect. The text removal concurrent with the tag addition was accidental and for that I apologize, it is plainly evident to anyone who bothered to look at the page history that I am in no way involved in an edit war on this article. I will point out that the qualifier "repeatedly" is an integral part of your quoted definition of edit war and as I only have 2 edits to this article, 1 two weeks ago and another 6 months ago, I in now way qualify as edit warring on this article and have (again) stricken my name from your little attack list. Also to characterize this edit [15] as anything other than removal of link spam is just plain silly, please check out the link that I removed and see WP:EL. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It is plainly evident to anyone who bothered to look at the page history that you were involved in an edit war on this article; it shows that you deleted a block of text that has been added and deleted several times in rapid succession as part of an edit war over that block of text; that doesn't mean I think you are a bad person, or need censure or am attacking you. WP:EL is specifically not applicable to citation/reference links. As you claim that you deleted that large block of text accidentally, and that you were unaware of the edit war, I will very charitably assume you in fact did so accidentally, were unaware of the edit war when you made the edit in question, and therefore were not edit warring and that you were merely an unwitting participant, L0b0t. --Elvey (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Had someone let me know about the accidental deletion of text I would have reverted it. You are correct WP:EL is not germane to cites. The spam I removed in august was in the external links section. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out: the edit warring of adding inadequately sourced content was done by User-multi error: no username detected (help). and 76.99.249.6 (talk · contribs). I noticed those were conspicuously absent from your section name on this thread. You also claim that the criticism section was removed wholesale; which was not the case - only the poorly sourced additions to it were reverted. I, and the multiple other editors who removed the content, appear to have all left the initially existing content.
As I said in the thread above this one - I have no problem with a criticism section, and I agree that it needs to be expanded. However, proper sources need to be used - which has not been done thus far. Here's the summary I see from an edit which I reverted:
Item 1 used the "aboutpaypal.org" site which is little more than a publicly open blog that also acts as a front-end (almost an advert) to a competitor product.
Item 2 used paypaldeveloper.com/pdn/board/, which is a forum/message board - again, clearly not a reliable source.
Item 3 used dnforum.com/f77/, which is another forum/message board.
Item 4 used a wikipedia link as a ref ... the original poster may have meant a different link, but it's impossible to tell.
Item 5 used another aboutpaypal.org link - see issue on item 1.
Item 6 used paypalsucks.com, the specific link being an article written by copy/paste text from a forum/message board.
I hadn't seen the other item you located that had been removed in November ... that was removed prior to my paying much attention to this article. It does use a RS, so should be possible to re-add to the article - although the wording should be improved to make clear it was a past issue (unless another current source can be found to confirm if the problem still exists - I'm not sure myself). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"IPs" is in the title. 76.99.249.6 is an IP. Crossed out accordingly. I did miss participation, you're right there. Item 1: true, but it stands without that link based on the paypal.com references. Thanks for the note Re. the November edit. Reply incomplete; I have to run; will review and respond ASAP. --Elvey (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I claimed that criticism was removed wholesale; which was the case. True: only problematically sourced additions to it were reverted.
I did not claim that "the criticism section was removed wholesale"; you misrepresented what I said when you made that complaint.--Elvey (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I misread what you had posted on the wholesale removal of new text v entire section. Although, due to the lack of reliable sources, I don't see any alternatives without new sources being provided (with the exception of the removal from November, as I mentioned above ... that one appears to have been a reliable source).
As to item 1 ... the paypal.com link is to PayPal's user agreement page. The limitations it outlines may be appropriate elsewhere in the article; but interpreting that as a criticism requires a reliable source, otherwise it's interpretation by the author which would be original research. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What COI are you implying? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

scammer website

sorry for my lack of wiki editing quality, I'm still not to familiar with this. I just wanted to bring attention to refrence #57. "aboutpaypal.org" is attached to the scammer site free-merchant.com. more info here:

http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,642555,642555 http://www.ciao.co.uk/Buyer_Beware_urgent_warnings_about_products_services_to_avoid_at_all_costs__Review_5519524 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.124.18 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll change it to http://paypalsucks.com/ 71.34.146.193 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It too points to the same alleged scammer site. 85.76.3.176 (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Section: Entrepreneurship by former employees

Why is this section even in the article? The article is about PayPal - not what some people who are (or at least were) associated with PayPal do outside of the company.

To me, this entire section should just be purged. The article should be about PayPal, not everything remotely related to PayPal. As it stands, the section comes accross as off-topic feel-good propaganda - trying to show indirect community involvement. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a thick enough skin to undo "example 2" (mentioned above), or remove this section. I smell a whiff of advertorial, but not a stench bad enough to prompt me into action. The entrepreneurship content is quite notable and I think it adds to the article. But then, I'm involved in entrepreneurship myself, so perhaps I'm biased.--Elvey (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I can see the value to the articles about the people who made the investments into other companies and organizations (and possibly mentioned in the articles about the recipients) ... but unless the funding was made by PayPal itself, I don't see why those mentions are relevant to this article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the section is (with the exception of the facebook entry) about founders, not funders; it speaks to a PayPal culture and/or network that is cited in the source. --Elvey (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not fully convinced of the sections value, but I can understand your argument for keeping it. Still, I think even if kept, the section seems a bit weighty to me, and could stand some trimming - it doesn't need to be all-inclusive, just some examples to support the statement would suffice. Purging down to only those in the cited article would probably be enough. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree.--Elvey (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just create a new article titled Entrepreneurship by former employees of paypal and make a note of it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I purged that ridiculous unencyclopedic section. 71.34.146.193 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Legislation

I recently tried to open an account, and noticed that the accounts are upheld against Singapore law. --Kebman (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Two-factor authentication

The section on the security key is self-contradictory. It describes the use of the key as two-factor authentication, meaning that logging in requires both something you know (the password) and something you have (the hardware security key). But then a couple of sentences later, the article says the security key is not required; the credit card number can be used instead. That's a helpful convenience, but it's no longer two-factor authentication. The credit card number is the same type of factor as the password -- something known. (Furthermore, it's not even a secret if it's ever been used to buy something.)

If that's really the way PayPal has implemented the process, the article should not call this scheme two-factor. Or at the least, there should be a big caveat. Spiel496 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Would anyone mind if I expanded this? Since their takeover by eBay PayPal seems to have become the World's Least Contactable company. I have just spent a hour talking to a machine, then I sent an email with a straightforward technical support request and all I have recieved is two emails advising me to talk to the number with the machine on it. It's all very frustrating and I am seriously thinking of looking for an alternative. Other customers will do likewise.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Be certain to have reliable sources for any additions - additions of personal experiences are original research, and will likely be quickly removed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Numerous requests to lift the blacklisting of Lebanon from paypal have led to absolutely no answer (I know, I participated to many of them). We tried different approaches, but we never got even an email. I know it is hard to provide proof for this but I wanted to point the fact at least on the discussion page (Xannax (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)).

Paypal not available in...

I went through the article and it mentions that Paypal is available in 190 countries. Googling it revealed that there are 194 countries in the world. In which four countries are Paypal's services not available? For the sake of completeness of the article, can these countries be listed in the main article with the reasons for the unavailability of the service, if any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 450w (talkcontribs) 14:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Paypal is available in the countries listed at [16], but only some features are available in some of the countries. For example, you might not be able to withdraw money, or only withdraw money into foreign bank accounts. A few countries are not listed there at all. I can't find Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba or North Korea in that list, but there may be more countries missing. (Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
Also add Pakistan to the list of countries where Paypal services aren't available at all. 58.65.181.201 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
And Zimbabwe. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
Paypal is also blacklisting Lebanon for no clear reason. Numerous requests, petitions, etc, have not changed this. To my knowledge, paypal even never answered the question of why. It might be interesting to provide a link to [17]: blacklisted countries would know there is an alternative. This said, I have no idea regarding the reliability of this website. (Xannax (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
Um, how can that blacklist web site open up an account for users from the mentioned countries, if the users can't do it themselves? The relevant addresses and payment methods would still be connected to the blacklisted countries. And if you manage to open an account, what's the point of using it if you can't use it for sending/receiving money? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

How exactly is PayPal available in China? It says that there are two kinds of accounts for .cn and .com, but there is not source cited for this? (92.243.8.186 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

$2,500 USD fine for porn???

The PayPal acceptable use policy has a series of boilerplate terms [18] against "using the PayPal service for activities that ... relate to sales of items that "2 relate to sales of ... (c) items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity, (d) items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime, (e) items that are considered obscene, (f) items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction ..."

That might not be uncommon, but then from the user agreement [19], "10.8 Acceptable Use Policy Violation - User Fines. If you violate the Acceptable Use Policy then we may hold your funds up to 180 Days, fine you up to $2,500.00 USD for each such violation and take legal action against you to recover additional losses we incur...."

The way I read this, it sounds like if they don't like what you read, you can be out $2500! Am I misreading this craziness? Have any eyebrows been raised? Wnt (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Its what you sell.. not what you buy. Thats mainly because visa and mastercard require you to pay a $750/yr or so last time I checked (with only a 1% chargeback threshold before massive fines start piling up) fee to be a "high risk" (read porn site) merchant. and american express allows no porn sites at all on thier network I forget about discover.. but who has a discover card anyway,,. so rather then break up what cards some accounts may take and risk huge fines they just banned porn completly to keep all paypal accounts uniform. sad if you ask me. if its legal.. you should be able to sell it. The govt tried to ban it.. but couldn't so got visa and mastercard to make it very difficult in exchange for bankruptcy reform. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)