This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DuncanHill (talk | contribs) at 21:12, 28 November 2010 (→Cut and paste move help: add some info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:12, 28 November 2010 by DuncanHill (talk | contribs) (→Cut and paste move help: add some info)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}
to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~
to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
Misplaced Pages Experts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Heads up. Probably time to buy popcorn futures. – iridescent 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we do not intent to keep a low profile; why would you assume so? On the contrary, to successfully supply a growing network of participating wikipedians with paid assignments, we have to make our offer well-known to prospective clients. This is why we announced our service via nationally-distributed press-release. I believe that our services will benefit not only participating writers, but also Misplaced Pages. Alex Konanykhin / founder of WikipediaExperts. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Yea it's probably easy to spot their accounts, this is WP:COI fest. Secret 16:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
(undent) My own personal opinion is that I am fine with the concept of professional writers contributing provided that their conflict of interest is clearly and explicitely disclosed (that what they are doing is, in the end, work for hire). They claim explicitly that they will follow our policies; if they do, they'd already be a darn sight better than many volunteers. If they don't, of if they try to behave covertly, then they will be found out and I expect the entire community would fall on them like a ton of sharp bricks, destroying any credibility in the process. — Coren 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
We've had cases where folks charge to write an article. This is the first I've seen that includes a maintenance contract. It appears that the writers from this site intend to do whatever is necessary to prevent articles from being deleted. If they are not transparent in revealing their COI, and participate in AFDs, etc, then that's a problem. Will Beback talk 00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sort of an incentive to keep your maintenance contract. If you cancel it your article will be thrown to the wolves or worse yet, your former contractors will lead the brigade of pitchforks and torches.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Are we going to take this seriously or not? - Paid for editing by corporate teams is happening all the time. Are we going to actually address this, and create a framework for this to happen, or continue to place our heads in the sand forever? In 2006, User:MyWikiBiz set up a paid for editing account, and all Misplaced Pages decided to do, was to ban it outright, block him, and delete his contributions. This is not going to make the problem go away, it is only going to drive it underground. This isn't MyWikiBiz, it isn't some kook, it's a professional marketing company, they're not idiots. For newer editors who want to see how the previous discussion was handled, take a look at Arch Coal and its history. A very good starting point is its DRV, I made similar arguments then. Misplaced Pages is too important, too visible for corporations and political entities to ignore. Paid for editing is happening right under our noses because our current policies at WP:COI keep them in the dark. The whole point of Misplaced Pages's open source model, is to allow for peer review, we should be embracing the strengths of open source to shine a light on their activities. Ideas for a framework for paid-editing
I think, just as I did in 2006, that there is a role for paid-for editing on Misplaced Pages. Our coverage of corporations is lacking, because unless they make video games, they don't have fans, and its fans generally, who start those articles regardless on any POV issues. The average consumer does not see what a B2B does - have you heard of Informatica? Well, they're worth over $3Bil, and we probably wouldn't have an article on them unless they wrote it themselves, which they did. Before we deleted it and decided to work against them, rather than with them. There are still holes in major market indices, let alone private corporations. Its clear that corporations are taking us seriously, we need to start taking them seriously, the status quo is not good enough. - hahnchen 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There has always been and likely always will be paid editors whether we allow them to be open about it is the only issue. Meanwhile the COI crusaders can carpet bomb hundreds of articles with COI tags so the tag is rendered meaningless. It would be more constructive to get COI and paid editors to simply follow the editing rules and continue to show the disruptors the door.Wroted (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Idea, we could have a policy where all paid editors are required to request the "paideditor" flag/group. We could than more easily track these contributions, we could also maybe do something with flagged revisions on these edits,,,? I agree with others above. This isn't going away, might as well manage it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The paid editors tend to create whitewashed articles. I reported a user here: who is editing on behalf of Neovia (Neteller) and has performed an outrageous whitewash job on the article as I noted previously, but also since then . (Nothing was done) The article is a corporate fantasy (cf. ) and the interests of wikipedia are certainly not served by having it edited by the corporation. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is "The encyclopedia anyone can edit." WP:COI allows users to make contributions to articles where a conflict of interest exists, so long as those edits are neutral. We all have conflicts of interest. If someone wants to offer their Misplaced Pages editing services for hire, they are doing this externally to Misplaced Pages. There is nothing we can and should do. Paid editing happens here all the time. Treat paid articles the same way you would any article. If it's an article written within our guidelines, fine. If it isn't, we have WP:CSD and WP:AFD. If someone wants to be disruptive about it, we have WP:BLOCKING. We already have the tools in place, and we already use them. Paid editing just happens under the radar. If someone wants to do it publicly, more power to them. If their editing skills aren't up to par and they can't get articles past our editing standards, this is not our problem. Prohibiting paid editors, however, is simply not an option. N419BH 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Offer to WikipediaExpertsHi, hope you're reading this. I think anyone planning to pay your fees may be deterred by this beauty currently sitting on your front page, above the "Free Consultation" box:
That should read "visibility". WikipediaExperts, if you're reading this, I offer that correction to you for free, but can I recommend you add an 'edit' button, so we can help you out properly? This collaborative editing thing we have going here really is quite powerful. I'm offering to copyedit your site for you, (something I have some 'expertise' in) in exchange for a $1,000 donation to the Wikimedia foundation... oh, and a thank you on my user talk would be nice. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Cutting to the chaseI am inviting User:Eclipsed to contribute to this discussion. As I pointed out upthread (forgetting that subtlety is wasted here), Eclipsed has declared a COI on their user page and just today proposed that "...both the Article Incubator and Articles for Creation be denoted as Safe Harbors for COI contributions". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Re-hashing old discussionsIf this is going to turn into a re-hash of Project talk:Paid editing (guideline) (and related pages), except with a different (new) set of paid editors being held up as examples, then could you please hold it either there or on the Village Pump, where the discussion will be seen as involving all of the editorship? Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
No honour among thieves?I am curious about the interactions between User:Eclipsed and user:Sigma0 1, who, like Eclipsed, is a paid editor. Eclipsed appears to have nominated a number of their articles for deletion, but the remark that I think needs explanation is this one where Eclipse suggests that Sigma0 1 read the WP:COI guideline. If Misplaced Pages allows paid editors, are we likely to see more of this type of activity where competing companies fight amongst themselves or carry on proxy battles with good-hand/bad-hand sockpuppets? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
A bit more clarityGreetings! My name is David, and on Misplaced Pages my username is Eclipsed. I recently signed up as COO of the company named in this thread. My boss is Alex Konanykhin. I receive financial compensation for the work I do for this company. I would like to say more, but I feel to do so may be a violation of the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING. A bit about how I came to be here: I was part of the underground economy. I came back from a long wikibreak because I got a freelance job to make a BLP, and it seemed like something fun to do. But after I started working on the article, I also started reading up on the guidelines and policies. It took a while to go through them all, and I got more freelance jobs in the meantime. I also had some of my team members help out, and tried my best to train them on the wiki-basics, NPOV, RS, etc. But eventually I came to realize that what I was doing was not acceptable to the community, and on the business side, it was not sustainable. So I started puting feelers out. I put the articles I worked on up for peer review and put myself up for editor review. But no response, my requests just sat in the backlog. I even had a crazy notion of going up for RfA. I contacted a few people about admin tutoring and did a little self-review of my history. But in the end, I thought I'd get snowed, the whole RfA environment turned me off, and I knew there would be unmitigatable COI issues. Then I met Alex. He showed me the website, and I was a bit shocked. The first thing I did was a WHOIS lookup, and saw his name, company address, contact info, everything! Right out in the open. Ouch. I thought there was no way I should join, the biz would surely get shut down within a few days of going public. But then we chatted some more, and I came to realize that he wanted to actually work within wikipedia, according to all the alphabet soup of guidelines and policies. After some more discussion about the Code of Ethics and the Pro bono plans, I was convinced and signed on. More later, Thanks! Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 10:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Discussion still doesn't belong here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Paid editors are vandals?I am confused as to why the discussion above was collapsed with the rationale being WP:DENY, which is an essay about denying recognition to vandals. Although Jehochman suggested this discussion was promoting a particular company, I had just pointed out several inconsistencies in the story offered to us by User:Eclipsed. I note also that good-faith contributions to the discussion by the company's owner were reverted. We often skirt around the issue of COI and paid editing with suspected paid editors and admins. Rather than debating this issue in an echo chamber, wouldn't it be productive to engage known paid editor in a dialogue? Can we please re-open this discussion (or at least come up with a plausible reason for shutting it down)? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You have Project talk:Paid editing (guideline) and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Use them! Stop complaining that a mis-placed discussion, that should be had amongst the entire editorship and that is inappropriate for the administrators' noticeboard, didn't get very far here (mislabelling in the collapsenote aside). You know where the places for such discussions are. One has 10 pages of archives on this very subject. Use them! This is a noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The major problem we have with paid editors is that they are usually paid to have a bias. It's hard to criticize the person who writes your paychecks. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I kind of thought it was agreed that this was not the place for this discussion. But since it continues anyway: a fundamental difference between a paid editor and someone advocating for a topic out of conviction is that we believe (WP:AGF) that (a) the latter is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia as they see it (b) that they are open to persuasion, discussion, and argument. The paid editor has the interests of the subject (usually) at heart, and are not open to changing their mind in anything like the same way ("oh, right, this guy is non-notable, I'll give back my fee..."). Paid editors may be better at appearing to follow the rules, but because of the way Misplaced Pages's rules are mutable and inconsistently enforced, combined with the risk of socking or meatpuppetry, they are extremely dangerous if they exceed a very low proportion of editors. If POV nationalism is Misplaced Pages's cholesterol, paid editing is its cancer. The former you can manage (though it might cause heart attacks), the latter you just want to get rid of in case it one day causes death. Rd232 12:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
|
- Sorry for the attitude here but since some users seem intent on closing out the conversation before its completed rather than doing the right thing and either letting it run its course here or moving it to the correct location I have cut and pasted it to the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) . Its not exactly protocal to copy and paste it I know but its too long and too many things have been said to just start a whole new one. Regardless of how it comes out the conversation needs to be completed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- While Rd232 is correct and the above Village pump link is a much better place to discuss the general topic, he and several others have completely missed the specific issue of this one instance of paid editting. The place to discuss a specific issue of paid editing, in a specific place, by a specific editor or group of editors, is here on the Administrators Noticeboard. This hatting, while well intentioned, has not been executed well. Moderation requires careful thought, not wild stumbling around waving arms and yelling "nah nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you". Do your *whole* job, admins, not just the easy part of it that lets you show how big your ban hammer is.120.19.16.221 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- My hammer is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big :P If there are specific issues with a particular instance or company, a new thread here or at ANI or WP:COIN would be appropriate, reusing whatever bits of the discussion above are helpful for that. The hatted thread was far too long and unfocussed to be any use for anything. Incidentally Kumioko moved a lot of not terribly helpful meta discussion to Misplaced Pages:VPP#Wikipedia_Experts. Sigh. It's not like this hasn't been discussed plenty of times before, so that any old messy discussion will do: to get anywhere it needs some thought and organisation (summary of prior discussions) and focus. There was a standalone RFC before, and a followup to that would make a lot more sense that what Kumioko just did. Rd232 13:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232, since you have taken ownership of this thread, would you have any objection to moving the sections dealing with the actions of specific editors (namely the sections entitled "Cutting to the chase", "No honour among thieves?", and "A bit more clarity") into their own thread and continuing that discussion? My suggested thread title would be "Actions of WikipediaExperts editors". The rest can then be archived. It seems a bit unorthodox, but perhaps it is a compromise that you would be willing to entertain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you think it useful to do that, I have no objection. But it should probably go to WP:COIN (with a note here). Rd232 14:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Have you read the discussion you are determined to quash? The concerns are not primarily about paid editing or conflict of interest. Please let me know what you are willing to allow here on your noticeboard. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you think it useful to do that, I have no objection. But it should probably go to WP:COIN (with a note here). Rd232 14:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest RD it would have been better to let the conversation play out here where it started rather than end it, twice, because some non admins were having a non admin discussion on the admin noticeboard. If it wasn't appropriate it should have been moved earlier rather than several days after the discussion began and after it had drawn attention. In the end it doesn't matter because since I moved it there has been no action at all eventhough it was fairly active here. So your actions have had the affect I believe was intended all along and unofficially killed it. In the end, admittadly it never would have gone anywhere anyway and the paid editors will just have to stay out of sight and out of the watchful eye. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The tree was cankerous. I told you where you could plant new seeds. This makes me some kind of anti-tree fundamentalist? The reason you haven't had success at VPP is because you declined to plant new seeds, and instead took a large cutting of the diseased tree. Rd232 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Extra points awarded for use of an extended metaphor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The tree was cankerous. I told you where you could plant new seeds. This makes me some kind of anti-tree fundamentalist? The reason you haven't had success at VPP is because you declined to plant new seeds, and instead took a large cutting of the diseased tree. Rd232 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232, since you have taken ownership of this thread, would you have any objection to moving the sections dealing with the actions of specific editors (namely the sections entitled "Cutting to the chase", "No honour among thieves?", and "A bit more clarity") into their own thread and continuing that discussion? My suggested thread title would be "Actions of WikipediaExperts editors". The rest can then be archived. It seems a bit unorthodox, but perhaps it is a compromise that you would be willing to entertain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- My hammer is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big :P If there are specific issues with a particular instance or company, a new thread here or at ANI or WP:COIN would be appropriate, reusing whatever bits of the discussion above are helpful for that. The hatted thread was far too long and unfocussed to be any use for anything. Incidentally Kumioko moved a lot of not terribly helpful meta discussion to Misplaced Pages:VPP#Wikipedia_Experts. Sigh. It's not like this hasn't been discussed plenty of times before, so that any old messy discussion will do: to get anywhere it needs some thought and organisation (summary of prior discussions) and focus. There was a standalone RFC before, and a followup to that would make a lot more sense that what Kumioko just did. Rd232 13:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- While Rd232 is correct and the above Village pump link is a much better place to discuss the general topic, he and several others have completely missed the specific issue of this one instance of paid editting. The place to discuss a specific issue of paid editing, in a specific place, by a specific editor or group of editors, is here on the Administrators Noticeboard. This hatting, while well intentioned, has not been executed well. Moderation requires careful thought, not wild stumbling around waving arms and yelling "nah nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you". Do your *whole* job, admins, not just the easy part of it that lets you show how big your ban hammer is.120.19.16.221 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Paid editing noticeboard
I've marked the noticeboard in question as proposed, since the policy / guideline behind it is proposed. Also, any issues that may be brought up there would be better dealt with at the conflict of interest noticeboard, which is much more active and has more people monitoring it. Regarding the noticeboard now, should we remove all posts there and place it in an archive? Or should the noticeboard be allowed to continue to function despite the guideline behind it being only proposed? Netalarm 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be able to perfectly well perform a useful function even without a guideline attached to it: it's a venue for noting paid editing requests made offsite, which are likely to translate sooner or later into editing which merits particular scrutiny with an awareness of the COI issue. Possibly it could be renamed to reflect that. A merger with the COI noticeboard would negatively affect this function, because there may be a delay between the request being noted and something being done, and so there may not be an immediate COI issue to handle, and the note of the potential one likely forgotten. Rd232 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously I am missing something here. Paid editing is in fundamental conflict with core goals, as Jimbo says, and is not formally endorsed. So the noticeboard duplicates WP:COIN. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I argued just above, it is useful to list paid editing adverts in order to look out for such work being done and give it extra scrutiny. COIN can't do that effectively without using a subpage, which is not obviously an improvement. Rd232 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The shortcut could be WP:MONEY, or WP:CASH. But no, I think fragmenting the discussion will not help. All such matters belong at WP:COIN, which also sounds like money. Jehochman 16:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Fragmenting the discussion"? Any one discussion will be in one place. Rd232 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
RFC/U about user:WeijiBaikeBianji
No need to advertise an RFC/U |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I recently started an RFC/U about this user’s conduct on a group of articles covered by a recent arbitration case. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/WeijiBaikeBianji Few people have commented there so far, possibly because of Thanksgiving, so more comments from uninvolved admins would be appreciated.-SightWatcher (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The RFC/U is clearly linked at the top of this page, together with the other ones. Stop sniping at each other in every possible forum. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
Sino-German cooperation, User:98.176.12.43 & User: Kintetsubuffalo
Resolved – Content dispute / edit war, unsuited for this noticeboard. Sandstein 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Please mediate and determine the following "war edit". It's a seemingly trivial matter that myself and this user have unnecessarily escalated. Kintetsbuffalo is angered by my referring to him one time in sarcasm as "your highness" for his repeated reversions of my explained edits:
98.176.12.43 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, this is a typical edit war about a trivial content disagreement because of poor communication. You both should have stopped reverting after the first revert and started discussing the matter on the talk page. I recommend that you start doing so now, and refrain from attacking each other personally. If either of you continues reverting, you may be blocked per WP:EW. Purely in my editorial capacity, I've proposed a compromise wording, but see no reason to continue this discussion on this board. For future reference, please see WP:DR for how to resolve such disputes. Sandstein 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages shouldn't be this difficult. What happened to being bold - and I have done my best to put the edit into context by providing a link to the word "helmet", which shows why the helmet should be noted. It's not chinese but german. I was hoping you could decisively decide for or against my edit. We seem to be at a standstill. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll
Request declined by unanimous consensus; don't see a point in keeping this open. T. Canens (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The abominable Wiki troll is a banned sockpuppetteer. At User talk:79.75.198.46#Your unblock request, a person who claims to have used The abominable Wiki troll together with others requests to be unbanned. They claim that they have created the account Jplarkin (but no other recent accounts) in order to edit constructively; that account has recently been blocked for block evasion. The request appears sincere to me, but because I am not familiar with The abominable Wiki troll, I'm not yet making a recommendation as to whether the community should grant it or not. I'm submitting the request to the community for consideration and am informing the admins who have previously interacted with The abominable Wiki troll about it. I have advised the person making the request, who also uses the IPs 88.104.*.*, that as far as I am concerned they may participate in this discussion unless another administrator objects to their participation, but that they must otherwise observe their ban until it is lifted. Sandstein 11:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Cut and paste move help
The content at Children's centre is the result of a cut-and-paste move from contact centre. Could a helpful admin do the necessary with the history to maintain attribution as required by the licences? Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just add, the two editors responsible are Coast123 (talk · contribs) and Ericwrightassociates (talk · contribs), who appear to be the same person or at least to work for the same company. I disagree with the move of content, as I have stated on the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)