Talk:Web Sheriff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POV

I think this article reads like Web Sheriff propaganda and really needs some POV work. The majority of the article seems to be promoting the company rather than informing about it. Also, what is supposed to be the difference between "Notable Client Issues" and "Notable Client Successes"? Both sections present the same kind of material. Blokatoh (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

All information is sourced from abundant and very reliable sources and does serve to explain the premise and operations of the company. There is of course, occasionally a negative fan reaction as mentioned in the article itself, that is sometimes responsible for vandalism to the article and to be expected somewhat by the nature of the company's activities and which I took into account when I independently expanded the article. I will check the article for dead urls and replace and consolidate the Issues and successes into one section for better clarity. Agadant (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an article can be well-cited and well-researched, yet still not be NPOV. I agree that this article is definitely well-cited (thanks to your continued efforts), but can not agree that the entire article serves to explain the premise and operations of the company. The introduction and first two sections are great, but clients section is more than half of the entire article, and does not appear to add much to the explanation of the premise and operations of the company. For example, the clients section begins with an impressive list of 48 people and other entities that have been represented by the company. Though I do not contest that the size of the list speaks to the, say, repute of the company, I would argue that it is not necessarily imperative to include the entire list; at least, not in the main article. A few examples of the entities previously represented by the company given together with a phrase or two indicating the company's wide-spread use, maybe with the more comprehensive list used as reference, would likely be more effective and less likely to be interpreted as non-NPOV or an attempt at using the article as an advertisement. In addition, the remainder of the clients section includes at least six detailed descriptions of cases the company has pursued as well as an impressive and extensive discourse on the reputed benefits of the company. Though examples of the company's work do help to expand upon the premise and operations of the company, the length and extensiveness of the section appear to only serve to promote a subjective view of the company's performance. A reduced version of the current section would likely similarly be more effective and less likely to be perceived as non-NPOV. Blokatoh (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you have taken a lot of interest in this article: even counting the number of clients listed. I actually had not done that myself. You seem to believe that you have problems with how the article is written and cite what you think are examples of how a Wikipedia article should be written to not be interpreted as non-NPOV. And yet, as of today, the only contributions you have made as a Wiki editor: these 4 edits are to label this article as POV and take considerable time and effort to write a well-thought out argument for your reasoning behind why you think it's this article that has the subjective viewpoint. This company deserves as good a representation on Wiki as any other corporation and certainly should be as thoroughly represented as the BitTorrent websites and other copyright infringing ones. I don't know how it can be said to be an attempt to use the article as an advertisement. I don't work for them. BTW, have you ever thought of using your writing talents contributing to Wikipedia articles. There are many that are urgently in need of editing help. All the best, Agadant (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the person who says it looks like propaganda. It's completely unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.143.72 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is compiled from information gathered from WP: RS such as: Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Independent, The Guardian, BBC, etc., etc.. The comments about it looking like propaganda are by two people who have made no other contributions to Wikipedia but on this talk page: that speaks for itself but it's not unexpected due to the nature of the company's field of operation. Agadant (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Advert?

Propaganda.Luísarfs (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC):

Per your contributions your only editing is contributions for a competing organization. Agadant (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever arguments you try to present it does not change the FACT that this page is written like an advertisement. Also, the fact that you are trying to delete this talk page seams rather suspicious. I see you also deleted some specific comments on this talk page. What are your intentions exactly? Luísarfs (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My intentions are to prevent vandalism and trolling on an article that is written on a company whose line of work is copyright enforcement and sometimes upsets fans on the internet with the removal of videos or downloaded songs. The talk page comments have only been made by editors who have no other contributions but contentious one to this article and talk page. That is one way to make a judgment of the intent of the editors involved. And the other editors did not have anything further to say when they were replied to. Your very few edits on the English language Wikipedia [1] are mostly limited to entries about Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa which seems to be a competitor in copyright enfringement enforcement. You have stated on your edit summary that the article needs work from someone not affiliated Web Sheriff implying that I am. I've been an editor here for over four years and have edited this one because it was often vandalized and was a very unfair representation of an important company in this field. You do not have a consensus to tag this article as an advertisement. All information is backed up by very good reliable sources. Agadant (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen that you turned this in as a dispute asking for a third opinion an hour before I made the reply above or challenged you on your reverting me. Not exactly a willingness to present any debate on your opinion of why the article should be tagged. [2] Agadant (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment I removed previously was a completely inaccurate and unfounded opinion on the company and disproved by reliable sources in the article. As such it equated to vandalism and should be removed from the talk page per the talk page rules. [3]. This article, of necessity, because of the company's line of work has to be closely watched and protected or it would be taken over by disgruntled fans acting out their dissatisfaction with vandalism to the article. Not the same as claiming ownership but being the editor who has put in numerous hours of work doing research, collecting and updating reliable sources for references and formating the article, I've had to assign myself to do that job or see my work all for naught. Agadant (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Clients' charting and awards" section tries to imply that web sheriff clients success, awards and album sales are closely related to the company actions when that would be arguable. This is a common strategy used in advertising. Other POV problems and arguments have already been addressed on previous comments, including the one you deleted which i consider valid and is not fit for removing according to WP:TPO guidelines. As to why you deleted this talk page is beyond me since being a casual contributor does not invalidate participation in discussion. Luísarfs (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It "tries to imply"? that is certainly a subjective remark and along the lines of your stating that I was affiliated with Web Sheriff. The section only lists charting and awards as is commonly done in musician's articles, as an example. Those are not said to be POV, if they are factual. Those chartings and awards and success are by the company's clients and as such are successes for the company's work. This could be seen as a subjective observation and objection from an editor who is putting information into articles about a competing organization in copyright protection.

The comment I removed was not valid as the company has been in business for ten years and not just getting started and the only instance of pro bono work was for the Bob Dylan Christmas album. A casual contributor is one thing but when the only contributions are on one topic - Web Sheriff - and how this one article in the whole of wikipedia is biased or written as an advertisement, it does tend to raise flags.

I decided it would be best under the circumstances to remove the POV section and comments by the one-time only editors, as it was acting as a magnet for more of them and distracting from any serious or well-intentioned discussions. Agadant (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO guidelines: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." And "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Agadant (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: Aside from the Clients section being a total mess, this article isn't really an advertisement. It's well sourced and doesn't have any particularly poor text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Luísarfs (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, thank you for your opinion and your time concerning this matter and for all of the important work you do for Wikipedia. Agadant (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

again:NPOV?

I find this article very biased (do I really have to say towards which side it's leaning?). And yes, I have taken into consideration the argument above that it's well sourced. It probably is. But then again, it isn't enough to source well what you're saying. A good article should as well be a representation of what sources say about the articles subject, i.e. you can't just omit what doesn't fit your way of seeing things or wanting them to be seen. So, an Article can be well sourced and non-neutral. To me this one seems to be very much so. Just as an example, take source 20 ("Off the Record: Web Sheriff is watching you", Evening Standard) [4], in and of itself quite a balanced if short piece on the mechanisms of Web Sheriff. The Evening Standard piece is used to source the following statements in the 'Fans Reactions' paragraph of the Wiki article:

1:Fans sometimes interpret this as Web Sheriff saying, "I've got my eye on you."

2:Grizzly Bear band member Ed Droste complied and apologized stating "The Web Sheriff is just doing his job, and we're all aware of the damage internet file sharing is doing to album sales.

Now, how convenient is that?! We better quote this in the Wiki Article verbatim! - But no reference is being made to the Evening Standards description of how compliance is achieved:

"Getting on his bad side is no fun, as Edward Droste, blogger and member of the band Grizzly Bear, revealed when he published the letter he received after sharing what he thought was a freely available Animal Collective track: “This is no laughing matter and should you refuse or otherwise fail to comply with the above request [to remove the shared track from his blog and publish an apology], we would ask you to simply provide us with the details of the US attorneys, UK solicitors, French and German avocats whom you would instruct in relation to the service of such multi-jurisdictional proceedings as shall ensue.”

I.e. Web Sheriff achieve compliance by threatening legal consequences on an international scale. Which, again, is fine with me, after all they're in the business of protecting their client's interests. But IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED in the article! For instance in the paragraphe 'Services and Operating Methods'. But it isn't. Instead we get this:

"Jason Burger of Crowdbands wrote: "Web Sheriff police the internet, no question. But instead of seeking to punish fans, they come up with constructive ways to fix the situations that benefit both the artists and fans involved. They are consultants, in a way. Call them agreeable and 'friendly' internet patrollers, somewhere between the LAPD and those cops in Superbad."

By selecting and omitting quotes someone is trying to paint a picture of Web Sheriff as a kind of Robin Hood who is fighting for both artists and bloggers/fans. This is wrong (not what Web Sheriff is doing, that is, but the way it is represented in this article). One last example for NPOV: I find the use of the verb 'respect' in the following statement quite odd, maybe even a tad weasely for an encyclopaedic article (again paragraph 'fans reactions'):

A:Eventually most of the fans tend to respect the wishes of their favored artists by cooperating.

However, the statement in the Evening Standard piece this is presumably sourced on reads:

B:In reality, the only voices the fans seem to respect are those of the musicians themselves.

While sentence A (Wiki-Article) constructs a causal relation between respect and cooperating (while -as we've seen above- omitting all reference to other causes for cooperation), sentence B (source!) says Web Sheriff in and of itself is not respected. I won't change anything in the article as I'm not a native english speaker; the article is probably being policed by someone close to Web Sheriff anyway. And judging from above reactions to NPOV-intervention requests someone will do a thorough research on me and find out that I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages and am therefore not entitled to do so;-)Nouly (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As I am the main editor who has researched and edited the article, it always falls to me to defend my editing. So be it, this is how Wikipedia works. On the first comment that "no reference is being made to how compliance is achieved", the article does in fact address that issue twice "In dealing with the pre-release leaking of albums and movies, if an MP3 pirated track shows up on a tracking site or BitTorrent, fan blog or website, the copyright offending sites are asked politely to take down the postings. Only upon non-compliance is the ISP notified to forcibly remove the content or close down the website." And here: "Bit Torrent file sharers are much more resistant to a friendly approach and may be sent letters threatening the consequences of non-compliance with civil or criminal charges being instigated." The Ed Droste incident was widely reported and blown-up (which is not in the best interests of Wiki to further), so therefore it was only briefly mentioned in the article. Ed Droste admitted that he did not respond to the request at first and then made a joke of it: [5] so he received a letter threatening legal action upon noncompliance as described. As far as the quote "Eventually most of the fans tend to respect the wishes of their favoured artists by cooperating": a typical Web Sheriff post contains a request for the fans to comply as a gesture of respect to the band: "Thank you for respecting the artist's wishes and, if you / your readers want good quality, non-pirated, preview tracks, then a full length, high quality version of..." [6] It would be considered synthesis [7] and POV to jump to the conclusion that the Evening Standard article says that Web Sheriff is not respected and their posts don't indicate that they expect compliance based on anything other than reapect for the artist and label.. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply, Agadant. I respect your work, and there's no need to 'defend' anything. I voiced my concerns with the general tone of this Article, and I stand by these concerns as I've learned over the years to trust my perception. The article suppresses some voices, emphasizes/pushes others.

Don't you see a pattern emerging on this talk page? I am not the first one to express concerns, and it's not the first time it is left to you to defend the article in its current form.

I was not suggesting putting what I've written into the article but was describing selective quoting, and was in the process synthesising, so I don't think wiki:synthesis [8] is in any form applicable as it is a guideline on how to select and present content for an article, not how to talk about content on the discussion page - but thank you for the link anyway.

Why not take serious the concerns others voice (serious like in ...hmmm, if so many people think there is an NPOV issue with this article, then there probably is)? Why not start by changing the "respect"-sentence I mentioned above (which is synthesis anyway) and continue by maybe deleting the Jason-Burger-quote which is very POV-pushing. As for the original research you're providing in your reply to support your view of the Droste incident, well, it's just that: original research (original research as in using a primary source). That's all, Thanks. Nouly (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew when I first edited the article that because of the nature of the company's work, there would be frequent vandalism and accusations on the talk page. In the process of putting together this article, I've seen the angry and unwarranted and sometimes hugely nasty comments on blogs by some fans who have lost their freebies due to the Web Sheriff's protection of copyrights for various artists and labels. So, if I wasn't clear enough for you that's what I meant by having to defend the article. Yes, there are accusations of POV here but all are comments by anonymous IPs, non-contributing editors with an agenda, etc. The issue has been ruled on already with an independent third opinion editor saying it was not an advert or POV. This editor has 30,000 edits and I have almost 11,000 giving some measure of authority to the article's contents. I have addressed issues several times when they had relevance but your wanting the article changed and certain quotes deleted does not inspire my confidence in you being NPOV.

Although you are wrong about Droste's article being Original Research (and as a matter of fact I only used the source here), here's another reliable source: [9]. The Jason Berger quote is very useful to explain how this company has a different approach to dealing with copyright infringement on the internet and is not POV pushing, unless you're wanting to see it that way. I would be perfectly willing to address your issues if I thought they had merit but Wikipedia editors should take the ruling of HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} much more seriously. Thanks for your respectful comments and your valuable time. Agadant (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} ruling addressed my complaint on this article being written like an advertisement. POV is a different issue. Luísarfs (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

They're more or less the same and you combined the issues in your previous comments. What is your story, Luisarfs? Why do you spend so much time and energy trying to degrade this article? It's obvious that your attitude towards Web Sheriff is POV... Is it just that you have an interest in a competing organization [10] or is it more personal? Do you know that negative energy/thinking comes back on us and has a very bad impact on our health? All the best, Agadant (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} unbiased and objective opinion addressed my question of whether the article was written like an advertisement because that was the question i asked, he gave his objective opinion to my objective request, in a professional way that i can only respect. He also separated the two issues (POV and advert-like article) by creating a separate topic for each one of them when he gave his third opinion, clarifying that they were different issues and leaving POV open for a separate discussion[11]. Anyway, it comes as no suprise that you would try to use HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} opinion to sustain your view on the neutrality of this article, it just goes in line with all your other action here, like accusing everyone on this talk page of being biased or censuring out unfavorable comments[12], with total disregard for WP:TPO guidelines. Why is the unsuccessful attempt to remove content from/close down The Pirate Bay tracker omitted?[13], perhaps so that all stories could be "success stories"? And since you insist on accusing me of being biased, why do all your edits focus on web sheriff, web sheriff clients, record companies, record companies CEOs etc?[14]. Whats your story Agadant (talk)? Is it a Web Sheriff kind of story? Luísarfs (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Luisarfs, I don't think you should be putting a tag on the article as your POV and perhaps COI editing on this talk page makes you suspect. I have not had time to address your issues but will soon. Seems like you're in too big a hurry to wait very long though to get your job done. I'm removing the tag as I question your reasons for wanting it there. Will reply soon. Agadant (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time I chimed in here. The version of the article I commented on was from March 27; clearly this article has changed quite a bit since then, so what I said then may not still apply. I'll address that in a second, but I'd just like to point out that you guys can just write out my username rather than copypasting my signature every time. Most people on Wikipedia don't address people that way.

• First, I think the History section has too much tangential/trivial information in it. The Giacobbi is unnecessary; it could very well be summarized with the same reference.

On the history section being tangential/trivial:And on Giacobbi information being objected to specifically:

A lot of companies have separate articles on their founders and key people. As example: Media Defender

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaDefender

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Saaf

Pirate Bay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Bay

I do think Giacobbi is a notable enough presence in the music industry to warrant his own article and so therefore certainly enough to have a little background information in the Web Sheriff article as he is the founder and managing director.

Here he is described by the inteviewer as: :Web Sheriff, John Giacobbi, the world’s leading music and movie piracy specialist:

http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/54002/internet-piracy-is-there-a-solution

The naming of the company is told in his words because I think that is the only way it can be presented. And direct quotes are encouraged in Wikipedia. There's no room for error there in interpretation, etc.

The information and background on Steve Orchard is not objected to so I won't discuss it. (Same type of information as on Giacobbi, except for the quoted material.) He also is notable enough to have his own article from browsing though Wiki biographies. Agadant (talk) (Very limited time, Will be back later)

• The Services and operating methods section suffers in a similar manner. The Crowdbands quote isn't necessary. This article isn't a press release, and testimonials from clients are excessive. And the quote about turning a negative into a positive doesn't really need to be there; I think it's pushing a POV of sorts.

I'm a little confused here: Crowdbands isn't a client and that is the only quote in the section (?) Once again, as encouraged and very common in Wiki articles, I used this direct quote to explain the difference in how the company operates as compared to others in the copyright protection business. And I think the source (Crowdbands) I've quoted is an independent 'not biased' one. Oh and by the way, when I found this quote by googling, I found that their article was tagged and so I improved it acting as a contributing editor whenever I can. Here's what it looked like before I improved it - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crowdbands&oldid=412516153

and here it is now:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdbands

Let me emphsize that there is NO connection to Web Sheriff. Only to my running across this in my search for information while editing and wanting to be useful. Agadant (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Having pointed out that according to WP:NPOV: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased", I will concede on this point and delete this quotatiom from this section. To the very best of my knowledge, Crowdbands has no relationship to Web Sheriff, other than Jason Burger referring to the interview he heard. But unwittingly, I created a controversy when I edited their article after linking to it. So, for appearances sake, I think it is best if I take it out. Agadant (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the Clients section so long? I realize I didn't comment on it before, but having a huge list of clients just seems unnecessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we don't need to list every single client that they have. A representative sample would be better.

I wrote the influence section for the Van Morrison article that passed GA and used a similar list for Influences. I know the client list is only representative; I have no idea how many clients they have but think it is probably many more than this list that I compiled from a quick Google search. Bob Dylan's article uses a similar type of listing in the Legacy section. Oh, and we do create articles all the time that are nothing but a list: Such as "List of artists who have ------", List of Scientologists, etc.. So, if lists are not approved of or allowed, I wasn't aware of this fact.

• Along those lines, the Clients section also reads like a press release. It's basically saying "look at all the great things Web Sheriff has done!", which is an inappropriate tone for what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Again, we don't need to list every time a client has come to them for a solution. Just because we can cite that time they helped Bob Dylan with his Christmas album doesn't mean it should be in the article. I would definitely support trimming down that section quite a bit.

If that is so, HelloAnnyong, I don't know why you didn't find fault with that before when you ruled that the article was not really an advert, had good sourcing and the text was not a problem. This part of the article was in place exactly as it is, (Bob Dylan info and all) and you found nothing wrong then. It's very confusing and troubling to me that you can change your ideas on this. I just don't quite understand how this can be. Agadant (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• There are sourcing issues here. For example, I see that http://worldsgreatestmusic.blogspot.com/2007/12/chasing-pavements-and-rainbows.html is used. By and large blogs are not reliable, and in this case, some guy's random blog shouldn't be used.

Removed - I don't know how I let that get past me, but I don't think there are any other sources that are not considered reliable and most of them "top of the line".

That's my take. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a turn of events! All that has been done to the article since you last checked it is that I found information on the founder and the chairman and the naming of the company that I thought was pertinent to the company's article and added it. I cleaned up the references for the client section as I thought that was the problem that you referred to. The blog reference had already been used when you first checked it, but certainly can be replaced. I wrote the influence section for the Van Morrison article that passed GA and used a similar list for Influences. I know the client list is only representative; I have no idea how many clients they have but think it is probably many more than this list that I compiled from a quick Google search. I really would like to take more time to research your issues. So I will be back with more replies and I also never got a chance to reply to the latest accusations by Luisarfs. Agadant (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The client section would be a good place to start, the problem has been mentioned before by other users. My suggestion for the first part(the client "list"):

Clients include record labels and musical artists, music publishers, film companies, film stars, sports personalities, book publishers, media organizations, newspapers, theatre producers and video and game companies. The majority of the company's clients are in the entertainment industry in the United States and United Kingdom.

Web Sheriff is employed by many prominent music artists, record labels and film companies. Notable clients include Bryan Adams, Bob Dylan, Michael Jackson, and Prince. Record labels that are represented include Columbia Records, Warner Bros. Records and Universal. Film distribution companies such as Magnolia Pictures, have hired Web Sheriff's services in order to get their copyrighted content removed from websites.

I chose these artists from the list, but i would not object if others were to be chosen. I have also placed a WP:NPOVD tag to try to attract other (more experienced) editors in to improving the article, Agadant editing experience would certainly help if he would agree to improve the article POV wise... Luísarfs (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the former listing of the clients was out of order and this type of embedded list is commonly used in articles and discussed in WP:Lists. The former listing of clients was not 'indiscriminate', it was chosen for prominence and was reliably sourced. As a matter of fact, more than the very few that are included now are necessary to back up the text in the section. I am working on a list that will be shortened from the original one, but will list the more prominent and notable clients - many of which have now been deleted. Some of them have been discussed throughout the article and the sources for showing that they are Web Sheriff clients have now been removed and need to be restored. Agadant (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on shortening the list of clients myself. Although since I picked them out by Googling, I would be very surprised if they were all the clients that Web Sheriff has! I suggest that because of your limited editing on the English Wikipedia except mostly 'hits' on this talkpage and conflict of interest editing on a competing organization that you should not be calling the 'shots'. (so to speak).Agadant (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Settle down; it's not really fair to disqualify an editor based on their ability in English. Given all I'd say Luísarfs is doing just fine and is plenty qualified to call the shots. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thing is, we can't see what he edits on the other language wikis. Do you not see a problem with him having a conflict of interest, because I think it is probable. [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agadant (talk • contribs) 20:13, May 31, 2011

I will come back later with a reply, and i will also be updating the client section with my proposal which you are free to change wen you finish working on an alternative. In the meantime i suggest you give a good read to WP:COI, and most importantly [[16]] Luísarfs (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. Since when? - WP:AGF Here is what you put on your edit summary: [17] when you first showed up here, Luisarfs. Agadant (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agadant, actually it is possible to see editors' edits on other Wikis. It's called unified login. Either way, we can't disenfranchise an editor because of their command of the language - that's just not fair. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That just goes to show how comments can be misinterpreted, HelloAnnyong, because I said nothing about his command of the language. And I will apologize if that was in anyway implied by me, unintentionally. I think he does okay there. But his edits have only been on this talkpage, putting tags on the Web Sheriff page and editing about: Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa regarding Copyright infringement on the Internet. That gives the definite appearance of conflict of interest when he is so strongly motivated to tag and cut out big chunks (and the client list, at that) of an article that has stood in place for months, mostly as it is.Agadant (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what agadant was pointing out was the small number of edits i have in the English encyclopedia, something he calls "one time editors", which in his book, and quite conveniently, is enough to delete an/or ignore someone's contribution, even if it only a comment on a talk page. Luísarfs (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you mean a single purpose account. I see. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, see above. I mean only tearing down this article and editing for a competing organization. Isn't that conflict of interest? Agadant (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We're dealing with two separate issues here: one, that the article is not neutral/POV/advert/whatever; and two, that Luisarfs may be a COI or something. They're mutually exclusive issues, so we should only address one at a time. This section of the talk page, for example, seems to be addressing the former of the two. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am combining them here as I am saying that someone with an apparent COI agenda should not be cutting away big parts of the client list! I thought you ruled against the article being an advert. (?) This whole process now is becoming really confusing to me. Agadant (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's not really a process here. It's true that before I said that the article wasn't too much of an advertisement, but that was two months ago. Perhaps I should have written more on it at the time, but I can't go change the past now. Right now, I think that the article could use some heavy trimming down, as I explained above.

Yes, it's possible that Luisarfs' editing here poses a conflict of interest, but per WP:COI that doesn't mean he can't edit here at all, he just needs to be careful. The same could be asked of your edits just from the other side. For example, you created Crowdbands, an organization that seems to have some ties to Web Sheriff. And your edits in general have all been skewed another way, i.e. towards promoting Web Sheriff. So being a conflict of interest really just means that an editor has to be aware of their own circumstances and edit accordingly.

And I don't think the issues should be combined. This article has issues in itself that are unrelated to Luisarfs' edits. I have no COI with this organization in the least, and I'm telling you that I think the article has issues that need to be addressed. Luisarfs didn't put the troubling content in the article - by and large, that was you. His COI is unrelated to the content you've added here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If this were to turn to something processual there would be three issues, i also think Agadant has a COI, based on his edits focusing entirely on websheriff, websheriff's clients, and other associated companies and personalities. I had mentioned this before but i was trying to take the course of actually improving the article, something agadant in not interested in the least. Luísarfs (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I started four years ago editing Van Morrison articles... in the process.. check out my userpage: [18] Morrison has become inactive as an artist and I don't even think he is a client anymore. I don't know only that he has no albums to protect. I started on Web sheriff because in editing Van Morrison I looked at this article and found it had been vandalised at least ten hours earlier and not a single editor had reverted it. I thought that was very unfair and not even fair to Wikipedia. Agadant (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Here's my first edit here. The vandalism had even been blessed by a Bot: [19] Agadant (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know if Van Morrison is still a websheriff client or not, at this point im starting to think of your as a reliable source on the subject, so i guess i will have to trust you regarding that information. Im not a vandal, the article need work. Its not neutral, as stated, over and over again by users. Luísarfs (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you done any editing much on Wikpedia, Luisarfs? Just wondering. The users are probably fans deprived of a video on YouTube. That would be an instant guess for anyone when the users show no previous history. The only place that is not allowed it on this talk page, it seems like. I have seen it discussed elsewhere with less weight given to special interest editors. Especially if they are very negative towards a controversial article. Do you really think this company does not attract editors who would like to see it only in a vandalised state? I really don't have any trust in you and you are responsible for that from your first edit when you accused me of being an agent for Web Sheriff. Agadant (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, now this is getting into some bad faith territory. We have COI issues on both sides, and also the question of whether or not the article is neutral. Setting aside the COI stuff so we can focus on the content and not the editors, the fact is that this article is not neutral in its current form. To that end, I've undone Agadan's undoing of Luisarfs' edit, as I think his edit was more in line with neutralizing the article. If you guys aren't willing to work towards a common version of the article, then I don't know what else we can do here. You could move further up the dispute resolution chain, which would either be RfC or MedCab, the latter of which you would both have to agree to.

My advice, though, would be to try to work together so that you don't have to take this to the next level. Honestly, DR can get kinda messy, especially as it goes further up the line, and I would hope that the two of you could work together on this. One solution would be for you both to outline the changes that you would make to improve the article (for example, you could make sandbox versions of the article and we could compare them) or something like that. You could also look at my recommendations above and either approve or disagree on them. Or you can just sit here and revert each other. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am ok with that. I will present the changes here first for everyones consideration (like i did previously). And thanks for moderating this discussion. Luísarfs (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, I've been around Wiki a long time and I have never seen it happen that good reliably sourced material can be removed without consensus. And at the time he removed it he had no consensus. Your backing him up in everything he does - says - gives him a no lose situation, doesn't it? I have spent hours of work on here and have put in meticulously sourced material. And yet, if as you say we both have a COI problem, then why is he allowed to change the article to his satisfaction and I am cut out of the process. Something is very wrong here!! Agadant (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not giving him carte blanche here, and obviously his removals are subject to the same scrutiny as everything else. If he changes things to say "Web Sheriff is the worst company ever", well clearly that's not going to be allowed in. Your edits here are appreciated, but you don't own this article, and things are allowed to change here. And a sentence having a source does not guarantee its inclusion in an article.

If the only two positions here are "This article is perfect as is" and "This article is pushing a POV", then I - and Luisarfs, I guess - are of the second opinion. If you can't accept that the article isn't perfect in its current state, well, I'm sorry. There's a slight consensus in that two editors are in agreement that the article needs to change, and there's only one editor that's dissenting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes to the client section. I answered your concerns tonight - staying up late to do so and you never replied or even considered what I wrote. You said a few months ago that this article was not an advert, was well sourced and no problem with the text. How could you have been so wrong then and so right now? I have never seen it happen before that a qualified editor is given so little concern and an inexperienced editor who has shown COI is given priority in making changes and cutting it down to the size he wants. I'm sure soon it will be a stub. I wonder why you brought up concerns about the article and then ignored my replies. You may think I am criticizing you.. I am not... I have just never seen this happen before. I really haven't. Agadant (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Last time I was only basing my judgment on whether or not the article is an advertisement in the traditional sense - stuff like "come use product X!" or whatever. I didn't take nearly as good a look at the content as I should have, and I really do apologize for that. (Also note that, since I last looked at the article, it's changed quite a bit.) I am allowed to change my opinion, you know, especially when a bunch of time has elapsed. If I was called on to talk about another 3O case I did from three years back and I had a different opinion of it now, that would most certainly be acceptable.

Above all, though, you should realize that this isn't a personal thing. My opinion is based solely on the content of the article, and I'm trying not to take the editors into account. One editor having more edits than another doesn't make them inherently better at editing to the point where we can marginalize another editor's contributions. Remember that we're supposed to assume good faith for all editors - both new and experienced. As a corollary to that, I think the COI issue exists on both sides. You can accuse the other editor, but remember that that doesn't make you immune to the same claim.

And this article isn't going to be a stub. That's a little overdramatic, and I would certainly not want that to happen. Take note that in my recommendation I did not say "let's cut down every big chunk of the article"; I said we need to trim down the Clients section, and clean up the text in the other sections. If you think that "trim down" and "clean" somehow equates to "stub the article", well, that's your own misperception. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable client issues (suggestion)

Web Sheriff was hired by Prince in 2007 to remove all traces of the artist from the internet.Some of the Prince fans contested the move, forming their own organization called "Prince Fans United" and hired an attorney. In September 2007, Web Sheriff announced it would launch lawsuits against YouTube, eBay and The Pirate Bay on behalf of Prince.YouTube complied by removing over 2,000 illegally uploaded videos from the site. Over 300 eBay auction sites were also closed down and numerous unauthorized overseas online sites selling merchandise featuring Prince were shut down. Peter Sunde, co-founder of The Pirate Bay, dismissed the threats, stating that American law was not applicable in Sweden.

In 2008, Bryan Adams employed the company to remove thousands of bootleg video clips from YouTube and replace them with official videos on his own channel.

The company has been instrumental in the removal of Ken Bigley execution videos and has closed down terrorist related sites as well as the extreme pornographic strangulation sites at the center of the notorious Jane Longhurst 2003 murder trial at the Old Bailey in London, England.

I have shortened the section to what i believe is a representative sample of the companie's actions. I have also removed two quotes, first because the sheer number of citations makes this article look more like a news piece then an encycopidia article, second because i find them to be often misused through out the article(im not alone here [20]): example: "These sites were described as in the "vanguard of online piracy"" but if you read the Guardian piece, these are actually John Giacobbi own words[21]. I know that a quote does not have to be from a neutral source, but if this is the case, i think that should be made clear in the article: "John Giaconni, websherrif's founder said...". I have also added a Peter Sunde reference regarding websherrif's lawsue threats, since The Pirate Bay was the only issue not being developed to its full extent. I have made other small changes in order to give the section a "tone" more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have also removed "success" from the title, why was it put there in the first place? Luísarfs (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that HelloAnnyong will approve of deleting that material, Luisarfs. And according to these Wiki guidelines, it would be not a method of dealing with any POV issues in the material that you think is there. Agadant (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete

While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text than can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

Supposed POV issues with sourced material are not just removed. They are discussed and changes made if it is agreed the changes will improve the article. After looking at many featured articles, I actually see that this article is really not written in a POV manner when compared. IF you want to take out or change anything then you need to list every reliably sourced sentence or sentences. Give specifics on any changes you want to make and give an argument for it citing Wikipedia guidelines in most cases. Just saying in a general way what you will do and your own reasons why is not the proper way to go about this. There needs to be a detailed discussion and I am going to insist on being considered in any changes to the article. I am not an agent for Web Sheriff, have no affiliation and have helped to write two Good Articles. My editing experience and the fact that in four years I have maintained a good reputation on here is of importance. Agadant (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with cutting down the Prince section. The Bryan Adams thing is also okay. I'm also alright with the Qtrax thing, in that Web Sheriff didn't really do much aside from notify a site. It's not something that's significant enough to warrant inclusion. Having said that, I think the Animal Collective thing could be included, though trimmed down (e.g. remove the quote from Ed Droste and so on). The RLSLOG thing is actually significant, I think, so that should probably be in. The others are okay as well.

One alternative here would be to get away from the sort of proseline way of doing things, and instead collect similar things. For example, something like "Web Sheriff has successfully taken down websites for Clients X, Y, and Z." It's just a different way of structuring things, but one that can be considered. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That means cutting out a lot of information in this section which according to Wiki NPOV Guidelines is not necessary. To rewrite materal and properly source it and if needed include extra material to balance it is more difficult but if that is what is needed and agreed upon that approach is the best way in my opinion. This is the type of thing that I would like to discuss instead of just removing material that took a very long amount of time to research, reference and write in the most well-intentioned manner that I could. And this way of doing things is actually backed up by WIki Guidelines that I included as a reference. If something like the extra Pirate Bay material needs to be added to balance it, I'm all for that. I never could understand from what I read just what happened there, so I avoided including it. I don't have any objection to Luisarfs edit there. Agadant (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agadant, your most recent edits aren't really doing much good. Phrasing like "Described as X" counts as a weasel word. Who described them as X? Phrasing like that is really just puffery and doesn't belong in the article. Also, that new paragraph you added to Clients charting needs to either have a lot of sourcing or be removed entirely. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it! You thought those were recent edits? No, I was restoring it back to the version being discussed on the talk page, after some anon IP changed it and took out selective and sourced information. I assume we wouldn't want to leave such an edit in place at this time. This shows the history of my reverting edits more clearly: [22]. - I have not made any changes to the article at this point without discussion on the talk page. And I certainly wouldn't put in new material without sourcing it. The quotes that you removed due to this misunderstanding were sourced and maybe could be reworded to show exactly who was being quoted? I really don't think they are out of line with policy especially if reworded and sourced immediately after and not at the end of the paragraph. Agadant (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean the first paragraph which is a summary and is sourced in the section as it occurs? But if that is it, I can source it in the summary also. Agadant (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Same misunderstanding here. It wasn't new but had been removed by the anon IP and I restored it. Well, glad we got this straightened out.- Those actions by me would not have been productive to this discussion, would they? I certainly know better than that, but guess you wouldn't know that. Agadant (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, I think it would be good to archive some of this talk page now. It is getting really difficult to find anything and reply, etc. Agadant (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, okay. I archived the first section, but the rest is part of the current conversation such that archiving it wouldn't be helpful. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Addressing issues

Adequate?

Web Sheriff was hired by Prince in 2007 to remove all traces of the artist from the internet.Some of the Prince fans contested the move, forming their own organization called "Prince Fans United" and hired an attorney. In September 2007, Web Sheriff announced it would launch lawsuits against YouTube, eBay and The Pirate Bay on behalf of Prince.YouTube complied by removing over 2,000 illegally uploaded videos from the site. Over 300 eBay auction sites were also closed down and numerous unauthorized overseas online sites selling merchandise featuring Prince were shut down. Peter Sunde, co-founder of The Pirate Bay, dismissed the threats, stating that American law was not applicable in Sweden.

When "Brother Sport", the first song from Animal Collective's album Merriweather Post Pavilion leaked in January 2008, Web Sheriff posted to Grizzly Bear's blog that they were the "global-leak-source of the track" and asked for an apology to be posted on the blog for a week to Domino Records, Animal Collective and Web Sheriff. Grizzly Bear band member Ed Droste complied. That same year, Bryan Adams also employed the company to remove thousands of bootleg video clips from YouTube.

RLSLOG, one of the world's most popular release news sites, was temporarily taken offline in January 2009 by Web Sheriff. The site was shut down by complaints by Web Sheriff to its web site host and band width provider. Although RLSLOG claims to not host any copyrighted material on its site, it provides readers with links to the copyrighted files.

The company has been instrumental in the removal of Ken Bigley execution videos and has closed down terrorist related sites as well as the extreme pornographic strangulation sites at the center of the notorious Jane Longhurst 2003 murder trial at the Old Bailey in London, England. Luísarfs (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm... this latest edition you suggest is once again deleting reliably sourced material contrary to WP:NPOV policy. The only addition is the Peter Sunde sentence which I have already stated I won't object to. Perhaps you should look at The Pirate Bay article (more than twice the size of this one) and even in the opening paragraph has the same type of positive descriptions of the site that are being assumed to be POV in this article and deleted. The featured article Bob Dylan has not cut out or not allowed all of the positive descriptions and successes he has achieved. This section, or any sections in this article, can not be limited to a certain small and contained size. Who is going to police that and on what grounds? Editing is about hard work - researching, writing and finding the best sources possible. It is not about deleting reliably sourced material to shorten a section, or that you find objectionable for your own unstated reasons or purposes. Not just my opinion, but backed up by the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Agadant (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: The two other editors who took part in this discussion, which was primarily about intentions to delete reliably sourced, fully factual and verifiable material and thereby shorten sections to selectively chosen content of their choice, left together from the discussion without further comment on June 3, 2011. WP:3O guidelnes were not followed or abided by in the preceding opinion, reversal, discussion, suggestions and editing by WP:3O editor. (And that editor's previous entries to The Pirate Bay and file sharing articles [23] [24] should have been reason enough to have not taken on the task, because that editing does tend to raise doubts about complete neutrality on the issue of the anti-piracy companies. I think by now, the discussion here should be considered closed. Agadant (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One Guardian??

Aside from your interest in Van Morrison, Agadant, why are you the sole guardian of this article? Rigorously spending time ensuring the technical sufficiency of citations for what are obviously NPOV points? For example, "continued success" while it may have been stated by a source, is a conclusion and unsuitable introduction. The entire article appears to be under your maintenance, Reader's should clearly beware when an editor, known for his Van Morrison editing alone, has taken so personally an article of a for-profit corporation. I cry foul.

I move for a new ruling, "well sourced" is an insufficient basis to verify non-POV (source variety is not an excuse for validity, or sufficient to excuse the use of sources only to string conclusions together which are entirely one-sided). That the article has but a single proponent should be taken into account when its content is contested.

Agadant: What is your motivation in crafting the article in this fashion, and spending so much time defending this corporate entity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.65.23 (talk • contribs) 04:50, June 2, 2011

I seriously hope you're not Luisarfs or somehow connected to that editor. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are issues that we take very seriously, so if you're here to try to skew the discussion on this page, you're really not helping. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, and I didn't read the entire discussion page before posting or editing. Being naive to the history I am superficially apologetic if I have made things worse - coming here to learn about the entity I expected a relatively short page instead of a press release with tenuous references at best (ok, perhaps a bit harsh, but I may as well plant my flag first since I accuse the article and author of failing to do so). I am rarely an editor, yet this content seems wildly speculative, I've spent some time reading the references and have made some minor modifications. That a third party, such as Pollstar or The Rolling Stone, quoted company officers and provided an explanation of the company's operation as part of a broader article generally is insufficient to support the strength of the claims made, many of which seem rather odd coming from an editor who seems to have taken a particular interest in this article, and as far as I can tell been somewhat protected behind technical approaches to sourcing which fail to factor in the holistic tone of the article and its particularly protective editor. I have struck some language which was to me quite overboard; striking "here are all the awards protected artists have won" - with no causal relationship or related source quoted may be the furthest I have gone. We are presented with an article about a company which in several key areas is sourced from third party quotes of company members, reads like a victory list, and provides a laughable narrative where the only detractors are fan bloggers whose concerns were immediately allayed (we see no information about reactionary DMCA actions? Detractors who were not converted? Detractors who were not just fans? What about host recipients of WebSherrif threats/take-down notices? Were there simply none?). Even if all this is true, I am no judge of ultimate fact here, the narrative excesses and the seemingly tight and limited editorial control poison this article in my opinion. Nice thing about the wiki-format: I get to express it, even if only for a minute or a moment, and hope that visitors are able to read an article, view the sources, and visit the talk page to get a sense of the drafter/drafting of the article. To my knowledge the entity is not even publicly traded, so we receive only third party sourced insights based on selectively disclosed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.65.23 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Someone got their video or free download taken down or something! Hope they feel better now! Agadant (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sufficient? Oh, you must have noticed I also removed the unwarranted claim that "bit-torrent users are resistant to friendly measures" from the article as well. Perhaps a more familiar editor could rephrase and link to such discussion elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.65.23 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that trying to edit this article without an ad?|min's intervention is quite pointless. agadant will not allow it. And no, you are not me.(Luisarfs here)89.181.30.78 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This comment by you, Luisarfs is not conducive to working together to improve the article. I won't say it is, but it could be considered trolling: [25]. BTW, I did not say this was you! I have to protect the article from vandalism and editing by someone who is upset with the company and wants to take it out here, because no one else does. And that does not go against Wiki policies. Editors are doing the same on every controversial article on Wikipedia every day.Agadant (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV 3rd time

This article is still really biased. There's no real criticism at all, and the article is very positive about the company. The NPOV template shouldn't be removed until more people are satisified that it doesn't read like an advert. The fact that this is the 4th round of discussions in 4 months shows the issue is being prematurely shelved. ··gracefool☺ 23:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are including yourself, there are 3 separate discussions of POV and the other two were ended already. Two of the discussions that were listed here were actually involving charges by the same editor, Luisarfs, who must I say once more, had only made contributing edits on a few musician's articles regarding a competing organization in Portugal. He will appear again, no doubt. He advocated removing large chunks of the article as his method of editing and fixing it to his satisfaction. He did suggest one to the Pirate Bay paragraph in the article. I replied that it was fine with me, but he never made the edit. I will put his information in the article myself.

The article, of course, is under attack, because the company frequently upsets people when it removes links to illegal downloads, etc. I'm very sure that this will continue over and over with time. And I was aware of that fact, when I started to edit the article. Every one of the POV accusations was made by SPAs or editors with a bias of their own. Should fans nasty comments on blogs be used in the article or exactly what should we put in here to be negative? Nothing is being suppressed of note, so do we make things up, to please the disgruntled, unhappy, BitTorrent users who frequent the talk page? A recent article, over the weekend, in TorrentFreak (not exactly fans) linked to this article, (although, perhaps. surprisingly, not in a negative context), so I was prepared for more tags going up and more dissenters claiming POV. Agadant (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm also sure it will come up, again and again. as to why I defend this article and as I have stated before it is because I am the one who has put in the hours of work. What else can I do? See it vandalized and deleted? I do think we need to realize that you can't just count times an article is attacked, but have to consider this is a very common method of venting because of Wikipedia's policy of allowing anyone to edit. Talk pages are used like blog forums. Agadant (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The One Guardian??? editor above agreed with me that he was venting against the Web Sheriff's takedowns on BitTorrent sites and his edits removing such information, pointed to that conclusion. Agadant (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did what? To be clear: I agree this article has serious NPOV issues, citation reliability issues, and is bizarrely moderated by one individual who is extremely overprotective of the article and increasingly resistant to any feedback whatsoever. For the record, I have never had any direct involvement with this company and stumbled upon this page while looking at a related topic. That I was so immediately appalled by its state led me to edit it, get engaged in the (long-running) discussion rant about its advertisement like status, and then accept that any attempt to modify it at all is pointless so long as one user, Agadant, abuses the wiki format in an attempt to secure his or her sovereignty over the article. The ridiculous common refrain "I must guard it because people get upset and hack it" seems unsupported and an ultimately empty rationale. I have a hard time believing Agadant does not have some conflict of interest, even if it springs not from remuneration but from a psychological attachment to this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.65.23 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you worked on Wiki, you would know it is not uncommon, at all, for one editor to work on an article until they have perfected it. I have done the same on many others, over the years. (This one is just a more controversial topic than most: an anti-piracy company) I have, in fact, made changes to the article, that have been suggested by others and am constantly striving to learn more, as I go along and make improvements. Your very presence here again, making accusations against me and the article are evidence that what I say is, in fact, true - I have twice had to defend myself and the article to you, when all I am doing here, is a process called "editing an article" and I enjoy it! Thanks for your cmments and your support of my efforts.Agadant (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The actual number of times THIS article, on a company involved in this type of work, is accused of being POV should not be the determining factor in tagging it, in all fairness. Agadant (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DRIVEBY: ":Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Agadant (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the archive, a talk page shouldn't be blanked. I've moved the oldest stuff to the first archive page, the rest is only a few months old.

As for WP:DRIVEBY, in full context I did the right thing. The previous sentence to your quote says "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies.", which I did. This is indeed the fourth time someone has raised the issue of this article being POV in a year (I missed the first which was sitting by itself in an archive page for some reason) - so it's hardly a last resort. Tags are standard practice for controversial articles, there are many that have had them for years.

As for bias, everyone has a point of view. But as you helpfully point out, you feel you have a lot to to lose from people changing an article you feel is "yours" because you've contributed so much to it. You've been vigorously defending it against all comers for a year. Who are you calling biased?

It's not your article, it's everyone's - so if there are repeated calls for a simple POV tag to be added, that is indeed be one of the determining factors in tagging it - in all fairness.

I don't want a war, so I'm not re-adding it even though it belongs. Hopefully we can get some more outside help.

··gracefool☺ 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, but to be fair, other than yourself and a 3O editor who oddly reversed themself and wanted only to delete material against policy, I've defended it from anon IPs and SPA's wanting to "delete" whatever they don't care for. This protection of reliably sourced material is so commonly done, is not against policy and performed with good cause on WP by main editors, that I should not have to defend myself for it. Look at some other articles such as The Pirate Bay, U2, Bob Dylan, etc., etc., etc.. As far as archiving and blanking, you need to WP: AGF, I'm no expert on that, but someone who should be, messed it up before me and I did my best to straighten it out. I'm not trying to hide anything! Just trying to abide by rules and what is done elsewhere on WP. Why doesn't this article get any suggestions made in good faith? Why is the talk page only taken over by accusations against me and the article? Everyone is so emotional about it, like it is the only article they personally have ever seen on WP that they feel is biased? (and in most cases, the first and only article they have ever edited on before and since) The POV accusations, of course, attract more of the same... that's human nature... so if I have tried perhaps prematurely to move on, it's only been to, for once, have a dialogue that is respectful towards me and the company and one which might in fact contain some good suggestions, like a talk page should. These are just blanket criticisms and accusations. Agadant (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Agadant and thank you for all the time you have spent developing this article and the many other contributions that you have made to Wikipedia. At the same time I would also echo the general sentiment that you see repeatedly in the threads above. That is that despite your great work and best intentions, the article is a bit promotional and needs the attention of editors who are not so attached to the article as you are. I note in your post above that you mention the word "defend" several times and I have seen it in other posts. I am not expert on this topic but I have done a lot of WP editing and what I see after spending 10 minutes on this article and talk page is that you have made 95% of all the edits to the article and despite your best intentions you are exerting WP:OWNERSHIP of this article. It may be time for you to just walk away and focus on a new project and let the community have some time to sort this article out. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks and I appreciate you are using a respectful tone, and yes, some have thought it was a bit promotional, but that doesn't mean because they have a negative view that they are right. I, and others, who tend to see things in life and on Wiki, in a positive view think it is a thorough, well-sourced, heavily-researched, informative and fairly complete article on a company that sometimes does unpopular work. Let's be honest, have you considered that this article is going to always be getting some kind of negative response from some of the affected persons for an infinite amount of time, unless you write it favouring illegal downloading and portray this company as a force of evil against the principles of file-sharing that some believe is a right on the internet. Well, I did, when I started working on it and saw the comments about the company on some of the blogs that Web Sheriff made an appearance on. I also saw the TorrentFreak article recently, that put a "bulls eye" on this article and even linked to it directly. And by the way, I've worked extensively on the Van Morrison main article (and related ones) for almost five years, getting it through GA with an admins assistance and I've never been told to walk away and let others delete my work, as they see fit. I don't think you can use it against me that I've been a diligent worker, when I get started on a topic. If you don't find out a lot about what you're writing about and become somewhat of an expert in the process, than you shouldn't be writing about it, IMO. As far as your taking exception to my use of the word "defend", I have used it because I have been accused of it. Actually, I am only following the WP policy of preventing reliably sourced information from being deleted on articles. Other articles have editors that watch for that, why shouldn't this one? I don't think I'm in the wrong on that and page histories even have a "number of watchers" to view. Am I really to be considered as claiming ownership for doing 95% of the edits here? I don't think there's a limit set for how many you can do. I've seen articles brought to GA and FA even, with the work of only one editor. Agadant (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You seem committed to staying with the article and though I don't agree with your reasoning I accept your decision and I look forward to working together to improve the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience on WP, generalized discussions tend to wander and make little progress and take up a lot of time. So I prefer discussions about specific items. I'm not sure what is being discussed or proposed in this thread. If some editor(s) feel the article needs a POV tag for example, then they should make a specific list of issues and what they feel needs to be done to make the article compliant with NPOV. This allows the tag to be removed once those issues are dealt with. Or, if someone feels a particular sentence or section is POV then again, we need to be specific about how that sentence or section needs to be amended to be compliant. These kinds of specific proposals can be discussed, consensus achieved and action undertaken. I am willing to participate in this process if others will be specific as to what they think is wrong and how it can be corrected. Then we can collaborate together and amend the article as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, I don't agree on the issue of tagging the article just because someone comes up with any issue they want to cite that is only their personal and maybe in itself. a POV opinion on the article. I rhink that like other Wiki articles, If this one should be tagged, in any fashion, it would have been done and upheld by some experienced editor or admin some time ago. And the rules state: Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. I've never been adverse to making changes in the article if they were sound and productive and I have made many over the course of time. So what I'm saying is: Yes, they should state what they think is wrong, but that doesn't, of necessity, make what they are stating right. The issues need to be examined for validity first and discussed and addressed on the article if valid. Agadant (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I disagree but until someone comes forth with a proposal its not worth discussing as its another generalized point. I would like to participate in the discussion of proposals for specific content changes. So let' see what comes up. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being civil to me. Will you help to restore the article as it was to this point so that it can be discussed. I am not capable of doing anything further right now but feel like a melt-down. I have many personal issues I am trying to deal with and this attack on me and the article is devastating to me and I can no longer think clearly. Please help altho perhaps you are upset with me, as I opposed you. Agadant (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The following was written after the quick deletions,and tagging were already done. NOTHING BEFORE. Please note time. Agadant (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite correct. Would you like to discuss the content issues now? aprock (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You make this seem very personal and contentious. Agadant (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

removing laundry list of media apearences

The list of clients is not at all encyclopedic, and should not be in the article. See WP:UNDUE, WP:LAUNDRY. I've tagged it with the appropriate clean up template which should generate external review at some point in the future. aprock (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Clients section

The clients section contains far too much detail that is of no encyclopedic interest. Certainly some of the more widely reported on client success stories and gaffes should be mentioned, but inclusion of an extended client list, and details after detail of work done for clients is not needed. aprock (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This was all shocking without any discussion or consensus for you to delete sourced material and put tags with no warning, discussion or consensus.

It ia like vandalism. Agadant (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have shocked you. Do you have anything to say about the content issues? aprock (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you give any warning? I was working with you on your previous deletion fo material yesterday, etc.. I was WP:AGF, But today's quick actions on your part were uncalled for and out of order... I reacted as to a vandal... but I think you should have a reputation to uphold. So why are you doing this? Agadant (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So why are you doing this? Please refer to the content issues at the top of the section. Thank you. aprock (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds really personal on your part. I hate to think that but you have not been civil at all. Agadant (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like a press release - it needs the flamethrowers turning on it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is trolling! and asking for an all out assault... surely some sense of order will be restored soon. Agadant (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have merged the three client sections and placed Reception at the bottom, where it usually goes. I am in agreement with Aprocks initial post in this thread and feel this rather large Client sectoin should be summarized to about 25% of its current form and placed in a History section. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, why have you taken out the part about the fan reactions, even? That was appropriate., for sure for an anti-piracy company's article? It seems like it is being suppressed that fans have a negative reaction on blogs to Web Sheriff. It was well sourced. There is even an article entitled Web Sheriff the most hated man on the internet. Why did you leave the artilcle ragged and tagged? How can any body do this to an article and feel good as a Wikipedia editor? Agadant (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Briefly reviewing the article and recent editing, I think the editors are doing a good job of making this into a properly sourced, encyclopedic article. Looks like there's more to do. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tags at the top of the article as the only remaining section that needs significant clean up is currently tagged and currently under discussion. At the time they were placed the tags were necessary and appropriate but now that there has been significant trimming and copy editing it seemed like over tagging to me. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you all talking about it on the phone or email? Agadant (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess that was a little humor, but where is the discussion taking place? I don't see it here. Why is that?

Further deletions request

Before this article gets more deleted and more reliable sources, information, and content is deleted, I think in the community spirit of fairness and equality on WP, NPOV policies and other misc. points such as WP: Syn as in the latest deletion, should be brought up and discussed. I am not a careless editor, disregarding policies constantly and not using reliable sources, etc.. Perhaps, as all of us do as editors I do not understand and make an entry that is out of policy. But I don't think it's that often, not like what these quick assumptions would indicate. A lot of material has already been deleted without discussion. Why, it is so easy to delete as I have pointed out many time and as the WP:NPOV policies call for little deletion concerning potentially POV material and only when some discussion has taken place. To delete this material this quickly and by many editors working as fast as possible to give it their least attention is not proper procedure. I have protested and LOUDLY to try to stop this before it goes further. I am hardly ever answered respectfully, have been put up on the COI noticeboard (resolved as not, which I am appreciative of) and in general treated like the enemy who should be ignored. There's not a single one of you multiple editors who have descended from out of nowhere, as far as this article was concerned, that would lay down and allow this to happen to your work and reputation. As with everyone of us, I was not able because of immense personal issues to respond calmly at the time this first took place. I did state that asking for further time but my request was ignored. Why is this taking place so quickly and without discussion? I want to know and I want to be treated with respect or it seems to me that these edits come from a POV attitude towards a controversial subject - an anti-piracy company. Not one of you has answered my inquiry: Does anyone dispute that this company and its work can be on the receiving end of much emotion and anger. Why was the fan reaction part deleted? If I'm not mistaken it was sourced by The LA Times. This is only one of the issues I would like to have an answer for. I do not believe, I can not believe, that proper procedures are being followed here. Anymore than they were by the 3O editor who appeared here and made some extraordinary out of policy decisions for deleting reliably sourced material and siding completely with the editor who requested the 3O, although the first decision on ADVERT was to rule the article was not . It's all there in the records but no one wants to take any time here, IMO. Agadant (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the big difference here between the 2 articles as far as POV and ADVERT?

I am not trying to cause any problems for The Pirate Bay article or editors, it's just that I am completely confused that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, so to speak. Looking again at The Pirate Bay article, I see a lot of similarities that exist between it and the last version of Web Sheriff before it was massively deleted without consensus. I know I looked at the article more than once in editing this one, for guidance on editing on related subject matter but of course completely opposing. I'm not going into details now but any editor that goes to the trouble and cares enough and all of you should as conscientious WP editors will see that similar material is in that article that was deleted in WS. For instance, almost all operational details were deleted here on the company. Another, Pirate Bay contains a laundry list of Blocking in various countries. Lots of similarities of presentation appear, and as I have stated, I did look at The Pirate Bay for guidance on what types of information, how to present it, structure it, etc. several times when I worked on this article. Not in a copycat fashion and not with any enmity or strong feelings against The Pirate Bay. But because I knew many editors were at work there and it was greatly watched and read and was related in a sense. The record will show I have made no edits there that I can ever remember. I DON'T EXPECT AN ANSWER AS I NEVER RECEIVE ONE FROM ANY OF THE CURRENT EDITORS WHO HAVE TAKEN OVER THIS ARTICLE, but I want this on record. At this point, I am completely at a loss, as to how this all is happening? and why it is being allowed by all the WP community? Agadant (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What you are talking about is WP:OTHERSTUFF - so other stuff exists on wikipedia that needs fixing, I've not read the pirate bay, I don't plan to read it (there are only so many hours in the day I spend on wikipedia), I don't plan to do anything about any of it's problems. It's irrelevant to this article and if it complies with policy. Any problems you have with that article, you should take there. As for the deletioning happening without consensus - that doesn't have to happen via discussion, it can happen via action - over the last two days, six long term editors went to work on this article, erasing the irrelevant, removing novel sythesis (the use of two seperate sources to advance a position neither makes - in this case, one source saying the company did X and another saying that the sales of album were Y) and promotional language. That's consensus in action. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, why was Luisarfs deletion of much material not reverted? He is not an experienced editor. His editing history only shows Web Sheriff POV editing and only deletions, never any contribution of material. I would have had so much more confidence in this process, if that had taken place. And then every word I write is used against me when I realize that this is not a fair process at all and I am too sick to know the proper channels to go through for some assistance. Speaking of rights, I am an experienced editor, I should be allowed to edit here and now you are threatening to have me topic banned? That is uncalled for and undue pressure. I was very upset to see that Luisarfs editing was not reverted. I would have had more confidence in this process by multiple editors who discuss nothing on the talk page and say they don't have to because they are experienced, but Luisarfs deletions should not have been allowed. Especially without discussion on the talk page. Over five hours passed, and not one reverted Luisarfs edits then I did and some positive changes in Style editing and naming information that was called indiscriminate by Luisarfs. You started changing my very minor (in comparison to Luisarfs massive deletion of reliable source material) in 9 minutes time. Agadant (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What I have pointed out does indeed show that this article is not so out of the ordinary and out of line, after all. All of the policies on WP such WP:Laundry WP:NPOV, etc. have interpretations and exceptions that different editors can discuss as to application on different material. What is because the different editors have not reverted one of the other one's edits, we can assume that they are in consensus? I am a long term editor myself, having been here almost 5 years and having over 11,000 edits and more actual article percentage time than most of these editors. So if long term is the qualification, I insist in being included and I do not agree with most of what has been done by these editors who have participated. I have expected some neutral editor to step in and stop it and when one did show up removing the tags after they were not needed, he was reverted, showing that only deletions and negative methods are acceptable here. As I have stated on the NPOV page, I object to these deletion tactics. No respect has been shown to the hours of work that another editor (myself) has contributed. Agadant (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)