Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 140 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 91 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 59 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 58 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 45 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 44 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 36 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 18 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	13	32
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	3	5
RfD	0	0	24	38	62
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 53 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 32 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 19 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 51 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 129 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 128 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 110 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 104 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 97 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 90 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 15 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 11 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 10 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation

Based on a community discussion, MRM pages were put on article probation in October 2011. There is no expiration date. Based on a subsequent discussion, a WP:1RR restriction was imposed, which is set to expire on October 20, 2013.

I propose that we extend the 1RR restriction for another year. At the same time, I propose a modification of the wording. The general probation impacts all MRM-related pages. However, the 1RR restriction, as worded, literally applies only to the Men's rights movement article. I propose that the 1RR restriction can be applied to any MRM-related page. It has already been applied in that fashion, at least by me. Some of the entries in the sanction log aren't clear in that regard, so I'm not sure if other admins have also done so.

Although no sanctions have been logged since August 2013, the previous sanctions have been effective in minimizing the disruption to the MRM pages. In particular, a 1RR restriction, which is a bright line, is helpful. There are still editors out there, who, in my view, have an agenda, and I suspect more will pop up, even if we are vigilant, but potentially a greater number if we are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I support this motion because it is clear that POV activism by SPA editors is a constant feature of the topic. Raising the floodgates will overwhelm the article and related topics. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the truly horrible state of the Men's rights article (see my rant on the talk page), I'm unclear how things could get much worse. "By their fruits you shall know them" is a pretty good motto. And the fruits of this 1RR restriction are pretty nasty. Maybe not as bad as if the restriction were removed, but certainly not a poster child for 1RR working in this area. I'll defer to those that generally oversee this area on the 1RR continuation/expansion, but wow, that article is a mess of generalizations. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I support the renewal and expansion. The restriction has very clearly forced things to be discussed on talk pages, and limited general disruption to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support renewal and expansion. Although I haven't been active in the men's rights arena much lately for real life reasons, I have still been keeping half an eye on it, and the 1rr restriction has helped some of the silliness. The article isn't great, and until a greater body of comprehensive secondary literature about the movement emerges would be hard to make great, even without the silliness - and the silliness makes it harder. 1rr hasn't been a panacea, but has helped restrain some of the biggest problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's proposal fully. Article remains on my watch and I see this as a positive for the community to renew this probation as suggested.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately, because removing it would make it worse. Hobit, which rant? I'd be interested to hear if you have any suggestions for improving the "policing" of the article; I wish I had some. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's under the NPOV tag section. I think the real issue is that those unhappy with the article have at least a few good points--the article is poorly written and seems to paint with too broad a brush. After having lots of things explained to me, I think the problems are fixable but it's a lot of work and I'm a horrible writer and I should be working... We'll see. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on the history of conflict over this topic. I don't think a 1RR restriction puts an undo hardship upon Editors who work on these articles. Restriction can be revisited in a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Reviewing the article and talk page history of Men's rights movement suggests to me that the value of the 1RR restriction on that specific article is still rather high and it should therefore be kept. Looking through the sanctions logs also leads me to support explicitly expanding the restriction to other MRM-related pages as well. In both the specific and the general cases, there still seems to be an issue with editors attempting to insert (and re-insert) advocacy without the support of good sources. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines work fine for the other 4,353,716 articles, so I don't see why this one needs special treatment. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That could well be that you simply do not know about the conflict and disputes involved with the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Whoever the IP is, they're not new to Wikipedia, given this reference to Malleus, which, in turn, links this comment. On a more substantive note, the IP is, of course, wrong. There are many articles and topic areas at Wikipedia that are subject to restrictions and sanctions--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Even less correct is the notion that Wikipedia policies and guidelines work. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As a former Wikipedian whose experience with Wikipedia was significantly diminished by Bbb23's tactics on this article, I'd like to point out something revealing in Bbb23's request. Bbb23 wrote that it is "useful in dealing with accounts that are agenda-driven". This implies that one's status of being "agenda-driven" (in Bbb23's opinion) is more important than whether or not one is correctly applying Wikipedia policy. The fact of the matter is that once Bbb23 has decided that you are "agenda-driven", he or she will dismiss your arguments as "weak" without actually discussing their merits, even after repeated requests to go address a certain point. Furthermore, Bbb23 has a history of deciding that users on one side (mine) of a given argument are "agenda-driven", while not noticing any agenda-driven actions on the other side. The upshot is that it appears to be impossible to get Bbb23 to even discuss the issue on its merits, let alone concede that the other person has a point. Eventually, another admin comes along and says Bbb23 is right, also without discussing the merits. Checkmate, and whether or not one is correct is irrelevant. This is all documented in detail, with diffs, in the archived discussion here[1]. That said, I recognize that the community has made its choice.98.222.60.232 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Closure. Can an uninvolved administrator please determine the appropriate closure?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

• AKonanykhin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 17 October 2013 ban discussion

A user has requested that a ban recently implemented here be lifted. I must remark that the ban was placed without meeting the formal requirements of WP:BAN, which states that there must be evidence of repeated disruption by a user. The closing admin Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated that they are "cutting and running", going offline for one week.[2] I have no issue with an editor taking a break; but an admin should not make a contentious administrative action if they know they will be unavailable to explain. Before leaving Kudpung refused to explain their actions when I challenged them. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to explain their actions. Regrettably, I am unable to discuss the matter with Kudpung, so we are right back here.

The text of the appeal:

I would like to request the lifting of the ban against WikiExperts, that is now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive254#Community_ban_proposal_for_paid_editing_firm_wikiexperts.us

While I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion, we respect the community’s decision that COI disclosure must be mandatory for us for anybody from WikiExperts to edit Wikipedia, in addition to all other COI guidelines. Therefore, we will be treating COI guidelines as policy from this point forward.

Until the ban is lifted, we have stopped editing as per the ban’s request, and will only do so once the ban is lifted in accordance to the language within it, which read, “The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases.” Once the ban is lifted, COI disclosure will be followed by anyone who edits in conjunction with WikiExperts.

As the CEO of WikiExperts I am stating here that from this point forward we will comply with the terms set out for lifting the ban. We have already updated our agreements and are in the process of updating our Ethics page on our website in anticipation of this change.

Would you please post my statement at the AN so that we can proceed with the conditions for lifting the ban. Thank you! AKonanykhin (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My greatest concern is that the user was banned without any diffs showing disruptive edits. They were banned for suspicion that they might do something wrong. This shocks the conscience and goes against our principles. In any event, the user has stated that they will adhere to policy and to WP:COI, and will disclose any paid editing. I think it will be better for Wikipedia to encourage this firm to operate in the open rather than driving them underground. We have no practical way to identify their employees, so the ban is a toothless provocation and ensures that these editors will never disclose what they are doing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Further info from the user:

On Friday, I attempted to communicate our compliance to the Arbitration Board, and its representative User:Roger Davies responded that the better way would be to place it on my Talk Page and ask somebody to add it to AN (see below). Yesterday, I complied with Mr. Davies' recommendation, posting our compliance pledge to my Talk Page and asking the admin Kudpung who enacted the ban to add it to AN. As I had no means to contact him directly, I did so by placing a note on his Talk page, and promptly removing it to avoid accusations of unathorized editing; the full text was only left on my Talk page. In retaliation, Kudpung banned IP address of our Hollywood FL office and greatly expanded the ban to any account "operated or assumed to be by Wikiexperts.com" This wide ban was enacted without any evidence of any violation of any rule by our company, as you rightly observed. I personally was banned without having ever made even a single edit in any WP article.

Thank you for considering his appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

For completeness, what I wrote was:

"Thanks for your email. We would in all likelihood refer this to the community as it was a community ban decision, with plenty of participation, relating to a hot button topic.

"However, it occurs to me that you can appeal to the community yourself - more quickly - by posting this request yourself on-wiki on your user page, with a note asking for it to be cross-posted to the Administrators Noticeboard."

I have formed no opinion on the merits or demerits of the appeal,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support First a minor point - the AN Ban discussion was closed on the 17th while the notice of unavailability was posted on the 20th. It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that Kudpung closed it on the 17th, knowing that he would be unavailable starting three days later. The timing is unfortunate, but that's all it is.

That said, I support overturning the ban. I haven't read the entire discussion, but I see enough problems that, as a minimum, we should start over and do it right if a ban is warranted, and ideally, find a way to reach out and determine whether there is a way to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia without declaring that the business cannot do anything.

The most important reason, and already noted, is the lack of diffs. Have we ever banned an contributor without citing a single diff? That alone ought to be a sufficient reason for overturning, but I'll not a couple other points. The Morning277 issue understandably leaves a bad taste. However, when one entity involved in paid editing wreaks havoc, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all entities involved in paid editing deserve similar opprobrium.

Some of the support are in reaction to strong words by the owner, which appear to defy our positions on COI. I agree that there was a bit of a bull in a china shop reaction, however, those concerns appear to have been taken on board, and the owner has changed policies. If we supported a ban based upon his initial position, we at least owe a second consideration when that very position is changed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, concurrent with the ban discussion there were policy discussions to try to establish standards for paid editors. One proposal banning paid editing was heavily opposed. Another, drafted by me, requiring paid editors to disclose has receive significant opposition for being too strong. It seems very strange to ban somebody for something that's not yet policy, and especially when the proposal "paid editing is forbidden" has a majority of opposition in the community. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• First of all, the lack of diffs is a lot less troubling to me than to you all. If someone says "I will trash Wikipedia" we have every right to say "You may not edit here". Of course his statement wasn't that strong, but "I will not play by your rules" is close enough IMO. That they are willing to follow the rules at this point is wonderful, but I think it's fair to worry if they actually will. I'd say:
  • conditional support. With the condition being that every editor who has or is editing for them be identified including alt accounts. If and when we find someone editing for them who isn't on that list, we can reinstate the ban. First of all, I think that's how paid editing should work (and I speak as someone who has written a proposal to the NSF to pay people to edit here--it barely didn't get funded sadly but I'd have had all editors identify that they were being paid). Secondly, given previous statements from this company, I think "trust but verify" is important. Without such a bit of clarity it will be impossible to fully verify. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC) -- Given that the current offer doesn't include disclosing past accounts I'm opposed to unbanning under his proposed conditions. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • So you think someone should be banned for thoughtcrime whether or not the actually broke any rules. OK, lets put your theory to the test. I will not play by your rules. I will trash Wikipedia. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making those two statements without any evidence that I have ever actually trashed Wikipedia or refused to follow the rules. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • There is plenty of evidence that this person has violated COI and our meat puppetry rules in the past. His threat to do so again is credible, yours is not. If you were to trash the main page and then later threaten to do so again, you'd be blocked in a heartbeat. It is unreasonable not to react to credible threats. We do it all the time with legal threats here. Why is this different? Hobit (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Obviously I cannot do the experiment but I believe that you are mistaken. If I trashed the main page, was blocked, and the block expired, I do not believe that I could be blocked for simply saying that I will do it again. Legal threats are a different matter; WP:LEGAL specifies the reason why they result in a block: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels", and of course we have a policy page that says that I cannot make legal threats, so that puts it back in the "violating an actual rule" category. Can you point me to the guideline where me saying (in a non-disruptive way and without breaking any other rules) that I will trash the main page but not actually doing that is blockable? I maintain that our policies forbid blocking someone for thoughtcrime. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Trashing the mainpage isn't quite the same as sockpuppetry, though. Let's change your scenario. Let's say that on the first day of every month you reveal an act of subtle vandalism that you've previously inserted for "humorous effect" using a dynamic IP sockpuppet account. And let's say that you make a show of telling people that you intend to continue the game indefinitely. Your claims are credible and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some kind of sanctions. AGF isn't intended to act as a hobble to common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Actually, I am not assuming good faith. That rule would be for looking at something that may or may not be against the rules and deciding whether to assume that it isn't. This is about a hypothetical editor who has broken no rule while expressing an unpopular opinion. And your new scenario would be someone being disruptive (we don't need to spell out every way someone can be disruptive). Both the repeated vandalism and the making a show of telling people that you will continue to do so is disruptive. I am talking about someone who has broken no rule (unless someone wants to point out where we have a rule against thoughtcrime). Even under your scenario, if an administrator responded to the clear disruption with a block that doesn't mention trolling or socking, but instead named something that is entirely within the rules, that would be wrong, and the blocked editor would be well within his rights to ask that the bad block be removed, even if it was only to have it instantly replaced with a good block based upon actual evidence of violating a policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Ah well I'm right there with you regarding the COI/NPOV bit of this mess. I haven't yet seen any evidence that AKonanykhin had engaged in violations, but only that he expressed his view that COI looks like a set of recommendations rather than like a set of firm rules (on which point I must regretfully agree with AKonanykhin). And my !vote below arises because I too think that basing the ban on this goes too far. If the ban is to be upheld I'd really rather it was clarified that it is related to the sock/meatpuppet admissions from SPI. And I guess that brings us to the point at which we differ in views. I see a substantive difference between blocks based on specific tangible crimes like vandalism or BLP or COI/NPOV violations and those based on intangible crimes like sockpuppetry or my subtle vandalism hypothetical. If a ban is based on a tangible violation (like COI/NPOV violations) then we absolutely should have specific diffs to point to that document the violation. But if the ban is based on reasonable suspicions that intangible violations (like sockpuppetry) will resume then I think the threat of harm/disruption should grant the blocking admin somewhat greater leeway (the block/ban would be subject to review anyway). In the matter at hand, I don't think the proof at SPI is strong enough to indicate that AKonanykhin poses a SOCK threat going forward, but if he does violate SOCK then the ban can always be re-applied. -Thibbs (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• I would disagree with Jehochman on one point: Wikiexperts was already "underground". The refusal to be open and honest about whose articles they were paid to edit - and lets face it, this is a PR group so AGF or no, NPOV cannot be automatically assumed - was antiethical and counter to community expectations. If they are prepared to act above board, then I am willing to reconsider my previous support of the ban. Resolute 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban I supported the ban in the 17 October ban discussion, "until they change their declared policy and commit to stating their COI and restricting their edits to talk pages." That appears to have happened. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I read their comments a couple of times and am missing where they say that they will restrict their edits to talk pages. Is that somehow implied by the "following all COI guidelines"? If so, I'd prefer it be made explicit. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Given that effective enforcement of the ban would requiring outing every Wikipedia editor, it's a self-righteous feel good action, not a reasonable approach to an admittedly very real problem. It will drive paid editing deeper underground and provide yet-another-thing for Wikipedia editors to accuse each other of. NE Ent 16:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• This appeal, though no fault of the User that represents the corporation states much that is irrelevant 1) "driving underground" has not occurred as the corporation has undertaken not to edit through the ban; 2) the community decision was based on statements of the corporation and through its representative, which in the consensus opinion made banning the needed remedy. Nonetheless, the undertakings of the corporation seem to address the major consensus concerns expressed, so if they follow through, including disclosure and their web page, and under current Wiki norms: not opposed to unban pursuant to these immediate undertakings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose: While it maybe possible/wise to overlook, all that is truly past (accounts and edits and non-disclosure); the statements below seem to suggest that the corporation will not disclose presently ongoing COI arrangements (the "maintain" article agreements issues), only future arrangements. If they will not upfront disclose relative to any/all COI editing going forward, then oppose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support: If they have indicated that they will fully comply with WP:COI instead of treating it as "unethical" as they were before, then the conditions that led to the ban have been satisfied. However, it should be made clear that reversion to previous behavior will lead to the banhammer being dropped once more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm just a lot more cynical or less trusting than you guys, but I have serious reservations about lifting this ban. The attitude expressed here is shocking and appalling on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. I mean, reading it now, I'm still not totally convinced that it's not a trolling parody. This is someone telling you that their official viewpoint is that it's "unethical" to disclose a financial conflict of interest. How would a sane, reputable publisher respond to a declaration like that?

  I'm a bit skeptical about the turnaround from the defiant stick-your-guidelines-where-the-sun-don't-shine attitude to the current conciliatory request above, and I've generally found modifying one's actual ethics to be much more difficult than modifying one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. I don't think this is a good idea. I'm opposed to it, unless we have some concrete way of ensuring that they follow through on what are currently unenforceable promises made under extreme duress. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  @MastCell: I've checked out the user, spoken with him, and am convinced that he's too serious to waste time trolling us. I think the ban was hasty, and there is a principle at stake: we don't ban people for suspicion. The banned account never even edited main space. Why are we so desperate to muzzle this guy? Let's assume good faith. If I'm wrong, WP:ROPE will be effective. Let's let his editors disclose themselves and promise to treat them fairly, while firmly enforcing WP:NPOV and all our other policies. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  As one cynic to another -- if the ban is upheld, do you really think the company will cease editing? NE Ent 23:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  I don't understand the argument that the possibility that a banned user will keep editing should be a valid reason for uplifting a ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I am sure many folks here are aware that in light of the recent uncovering of the SPI network run by WIki-PR, new policies were proposed to ban paid advocacy. See discussion here for a sense of the very mixed thoughts of the community. I posted notice of this discussion, there. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose at least for now. While it does seem like the process by which WikiExperts was banned was flawed, there is deep discomfort in the community with this kind of activity. We should not allow WikiExperts back in until the community has made up its mind on how to deal with this paid advocacy. I also note that the brief description that appears with WikiExpert's "hit" on Google, reads "WikiExperts handles this task for you, protecting your online reputation." Wikipedia does not exist to enhance or detract from anyone's reputation - it exists to provide NPOV information. If you read their Ethics page, while it is great that they say they will not remove any well-sourced negative information, at no point do say that they would actually add negative information about a company, even if that information were well-sourced. This is what I mean, about editors working for WIkiExperts actually not being aligned with WIkipedia's goals. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support The whole community ban proposal was a illegitimate witch hunt intended to out editors and get them banned. That goes against what Wikipedia stands for. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support Konveyor Belt is absolutely correct. And for the admin who closed the discussion in favor of the ban- shame on you and you should be stripped of your admin abilities, that was an abuse of power and completely not in line with policy or even the community feelings on the issue, there is no way in hell that discussion was in favor of a ban by the Community and should have been closed as "no consensus" at the very least. I am so disappointed. The ban is illegitimate and was never agreed upon by consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support per Jehochman and SPhilbrick. We do not want to go down the road of banning folks preemptively and without evidence. Especially not with a user/company that is making a good faith effort.--v/r - TP 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support - more or less as per Bushranger above, if they have indicated they will comply with WP:COI fully. It would also help a lot if the frankly inexcusable statement they made about how it is unethical to abide by our policies and guidelines is very visibly and prominently rescinded and apologized for. I believe I had justification for supporting the ban based on their stated disregard for policy and guidelines, and I believe that keeping the ban in place until that statement is clearly retracted and they agree to abide by all relevant policies and guidelines is clearly indicated, here and elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support. If every WikiExpert editor declares their COI, and participates via talk page suggestions, I am willing to let them do so. Regarding the absence of diffs; they are not needed. I approve of the banning of an editor who declares the intention to violate Wikipedia's policies. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The ban was ridiculous and out of process. Eric Corbett 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I find the reasoning of "no diffs provided" and other process-related complaints about the banning discussion to be a bit circular and more than a bit lawyerish. When someone states they plan to circumvent the guidelines here, I'd say the need for specific diffs of editing infractions is pretty much superseded -- especially when that circumvention is what prevents us from potentially finding any such diffs to begin with. But that said, since I only supported the ban because of their stated policy of non-disclosure, if they change their policy to full disclosure -- an oft-updated list on their site, of the Wikiepdia usernames in their prevue, would be ideal -- I'm fine with letting them back (that is, unless/until we pass something that says paid editing is disallowed altogether). equazcion → 17:53, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  • So you think that the requirement for actual evidence of of editing infractions superseded if someone says that they plan to circumvent the guidelines here? OK, lets put your theory to the test. I plan to circumvent the guidelines here. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making that statement without any evidence that I have ever actually circumvented any guidelines. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course I wouldn't waste time acting on your issuing a hypothetical challenge just to make a point, but if it seemed like you were remotely as serious about that as this person who posted it as part of his business plan, I would do so for you, and you'd be the first to know how it worked out. equazcion → 05:18, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
      • Let's pretend I was serious and credible. (Quaker cannons are of no use if the enemy knows that they are Quaker cannons... :) ) What policy would you cite as me having violated? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:COMMONSENSE. equazcion → 15:31, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but you cannot invoke WP:COMMONSENSE to justify banning something just because you don't like it. Also, it's an essay, and you cannot ban someone for violating an essay. That section ends with "Editors must use their best judgment". If your best judgement (the generic "your" -- I am not pointing at you personally) says that it is OK to ban someone not for anything they have done but rather for an opinion they hold, then I must question that judgment. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • According to WP:Blocking_policy#Disruption you can be sanctioned for breaching guidelines as well as policies... Depending on context, your hypothetical example statement in itself (and AKonanykhin's initial statements that caused the ban to be imposed) could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive – and sanction worthy. Mojoworker (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
              • The only way that either statement by iteself could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive is by pretty much ignoring what those guidelines actually say and using a definition that encompasses anything someone doesn't like. It makes denying the holocaust disruptive and pointy. It makes arguing against anthropogenic global warming disruptive and pointy. It makes saying that the WMF is going the wrong way disruptive and pointy. In fact it makes anything that a bunch of editors disagree with disruptive and pointy. Of course someone can be disruptive and pointy while expressing those unpopular opinions -- we have plenty of examples of that -- but expressing an unpopular opinion without violating any policies or guidelines is never disruptive or pointy. Remember, next time you may be the target of a thoughtcrime ban instead of the proponent. --Guy Macon (talk)
                • That's essentially all true. The community decides what's considered disruptive and what makes sense -- pointing to the essay again, which albeit merely an essay, describes what IAR tends to mean. If you think what's transpired here demonstrates that someone doesn't need to violate a particular posted policy in order to be banned, you'd be correct. You seem to find that a disturbing notion since it means there would be no solid rule structure here and everything is therefore subjective, but that's basically how Wikipedia works, by its very principle -- for better or worse. equazcion → 21:35, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban which should never have been enacted in the first place. --John (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support for lifting the ban. Clearly reveal all editors being paid by this company, and commit to exercising conformance to all policies and guidelines by those editors. Guidelines may not be "policy", but they are deemed guidelines because they are agreed by the community to be best practices. Improper conduct by any editor under the authority of this company may result in a sanctions being applied as to all representatives of the company. bd2412 T 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support The problem last time around was their opposition to our policies. They have committed to abiding by the community norms now, so there isn't an ongoing reason to restrict their editing. Some have suggested that the ban be lifted under the condition that WikiExperts only ever edits talk pages. While I agree this is a good practice to encourage, I don't think we should make the unban conditional on them never making an article edit. {{requested edit}} gets backlogged often, sometimes for very extended periods of time... and editor retention in that area is poor. This is especially true with respect to editing articles about obscure companies. Uncontroversial edits should be uncontroversial, even if made by their team, and WikiExperts should not be discouraged from making grammar corrections or fighting vandalism just because they're being paid for that purpose. Edits where neutrality is a possible concern should, obviously, be discussed, but I don't want to see them banned in the future just for making neutral changes to articles on their own. We need people to edit these articles. As long as they are being edited neutrally, that is a net benefit to the project.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support While I don't support the venture of WikiExperts, per se, insofar as they recognize and comply with the COI policy, there would appear to be no grounds to band them.

That said, I don't think that the current policy is adequate, so hopefully this will lead to some sort of evolution vis-a-vis the current (inadequate) policies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose Upon reading some of the other comments about meat puppetry--setting aside the sockpuppetry--I've decided to change my vote until that issue is clarified. It seems that if you have more than one editor from a paid editing group editing the same article that other policy issues arise; for example, the Wikipedia consensus building process is undermined due to the contractual obligations of PR professional to PR client. The ban should be maintained until the community can work out a viable policy-based solution, or WMF imposes one. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, and make sure that this editor is handled in a fair and transparent manner. The speed of reaction has a knee jerk feel to it. I see no reason yet to ban this editor because he exhibits fairly ordinary behaviour, despite the paid editing accusations and the firm he appears to head being controversial. However, should his behaviour become worthy of a ban, yes, ban him in the future. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditionally support unban as the one who originally proposed the ban. If wikiexperts.us has now agreed to make the requisite COI disclosure, the ban is no longer as a preventative measure and would be purely punitive. Lifting of the ban should, of course, be conditional upon actually doing that going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support this is going to continue no matter how many we ban, better to address paid editors now and establish additional guidelines if needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't find myself supporting this unblock at this time. Just far to early in my opinion, and the exact reasoning seems to boarder on the desperate to unblock over what could be seen as a technicality. We are not a court of law, just volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Wikipedia is. It places an unfair advantage to articles that have editors being paid on a regular basis to edit here with permission. I see almost no way to make this work even with the proposal from below. But what I do see is many editors who have some argument I can understand if not truly agree with. This isn't a block appeal of a single editor. So I oppose the unblock of the entire company being allowed back right now, but would support the single editor himself being unblocked. Let him, as the CEO of this company, first lead by example. If they can be seen to be working within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia I think we can revisit this in a short time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Since when do we even consider an unban request just a few days after the ban is implemented? Come back a year or two from now. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Since it emerged that this ban was incorrect in the first place, that the victim of the ban had done nothing wrong at all, and that the ban was placed to enforce a principle that the majority of Wikipedians do not agree with. That's when. --John (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: There were many diffs listed in the discussion showing infringements of WP:Sock puppetry here: [3] and also here [4] and here [5]. After concerns were first raised that there were infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user denied and said these accusations were done "falsely" [6]. But at the SPI investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts/Archive, User:AKonanykhin admits to paying an editor to insert a promo shot of Alexander Konanykhin into the Alex Konanykhin article. He also admits to paying an editor who was then blocked for insertion of spam and advertising [7]. So, when these concerns were first raised, user's response was to deny. Then, when clear evidence is presented, the admissions come. If the user really is contrite, then surely user would be more than willing to show this contrition by sitting out a reasonable time for a block, not just a few days. The unblock proposal sounds far more like a continuation of the falsehoods in an attempt to continue past behaviour. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support, with heavy emphasis on "conditional". I agree with Hobit and bd2412. Trust but verify, as Hobit said. All accounts must be identified. All accounts must agree to abide by policies and guidelines, same as any other editor. If evidence appears that policies and guidelines are being ignored or violated, the ban comes back. And I want to add that all the comments about the existing ban being improper strike me as wikilawyering hogwash. It was a proper ban, based upon explicit evidence and community norms. This isn't a court of law, and the pleading about process in this particular instance has been utterly groundless. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support: A dangerous precedent, banning editors you don't like on suspicion that they might be damaging the encyclopedia. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI and strong evidence of socking isn't enough to get over the "might be damaging" thing? Hobit (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That is correct. A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI does not justify a ban. Bans need to be based upon actual violations, not on expressing unpopular opinions. As for strong evidence of socking, please show me where in the ban request socking was even claimed. If you want them banned for socking, write up a proposal that says that, and include some sort of evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • A large number of those supporting the ban included socking as a reason for the ban. Just search for "sock". Look, we've got someone who A) admits to using socks and having others edit for him (which would be meatpuppetry) B) we have ample evidence does use socks/meatpuppets and C) clearly indicated an intent to keep doing this. And it would be an unpopular opinion to say "COI is a bad policy". It would be threatening to disrupt to say "I've ignored COI and intend to do so in the future". Hobit (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I of course have no problem with blocking for socking (with evidence), but a number of editors on this very page have told me that it is OK to block someone for (in your words) "A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI." Where is the policy that allows that? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
          • WMF Press Release The following statement would seem to indicate that there is a general policy violation in not declaring a COI. I don't know what the implications are regarding this ban, but perhaps it should be addressed in this discussion.

            Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices.

            --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Sadly I don't think that could be used to mandate COI disclosures. There's a difference between passive failure to represent your affiliation with a company and active misrepresentation of your affiliation. Even the bit urging companies "to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia" is just that... an urging. But think how well that press release would be complimented by an actual policy mandating disclosure of COI. That would be ideal in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a policy directly addressing this issue is needed. Regarding the ban, I think that there is room to find a gray zone between explicitly declaring an intent to not disclose relationships to companies (don't know if they actually edited any articles for clients) and actively misrepresenting a relationship. It is more than a passive inaction, at any rate, based on the explicit expression of intent to not represent the relationship at all--to conceal it. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative but I don't believe there was evidence of damage done to the encyclopedia. As long as they agree to abide by WP:COI and be open about it, I think they should be allowed to edit on article Talk Pages:

"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question, or on a noticeboard such as WP:COIN. These changes may or may not be acted upon. Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest." WP:COI

I encourage them to join Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. If there are infractions in the future, they should dealt with. I don't believe in blocks based on suspicions, whether it is of a registered account or an IP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support… a little dubiously. But yes. To get personal and historical for a moment: Jehochman is a trusting guy. I've watched him assuming too much good faith quite often, and getting it flung back in his face. By contrast, the point made by MastCell, the original Wikipedia Cynic, really resonates with me: one's actual corporate ethics don't tend to be so easily changed as one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. Agreed. But I believe, or at least I hope, that the statement by AKonanykhin above will make it possible to unban on the "trust but verify" principle mentioned by several supporters of the unban proposal. Presumably some of us cynical people will be watching and verifying. It also impresses me that Seraphimblade, the original proposer of the ban, is now prepared to support an unban. And I'd like to second Tryptofish's characterization of the claims that the original ban was improper as "wikilawyering hogwash". It was a proper ban, and it should be immediately reinstated if the unban is gamed in any way. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC).

• Support. I am quite unhappy with the way that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us was closed. Normally when the result of a discussion goes against me I have no problem accepting and following the consensus, but in this case the closing comments ("There is a clear consensus to support the proposal, based both numerically and on the strength of the arguments. Among the Oppose !votes and comments are strong recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy, but that would be the subject of a separate discussion.") do not accurately reflect either the strength of the arguments or whether a significant number of the oppose comments were actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy. In my opinion, Kudpung let his own POV cloud his judgement. I think that he should have asked for a couple of other uninvolved editor or admins to agree with the closing, as is common in hotly contested proposals. I maintain that a fair reading of the arguments shows that it is the support arguments that are weak and are actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy by allowing someone to be banned even if they did nothing wrong, simply for expressing an unpopular opinion. That's a huge change from our policies and guidelines as written. Bans should be based upon actual specific edits that violate specific policies or guidelines, not on having a "contemptuous attitude toward our COI guidelines". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many diffs proving meatpuppettry by people specifically connected to Akonanykhin were provided during previous AN discussion, and I do not see any procedural violations during previous discussion and closing. Where is disclosure? I mean the list of accounts that are currently used by members of this organization? Once again, this is not only a matter of COI, but a matter of proven meatpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, could you show me a few of them? I never saw any such diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we had at least four accounts acting his meatpuppets and edited his biography[8], [9], [10], [11]. One of them was blocked by an arbitrator, and rightly so. If anyone is interested in more detail, they can check previous AN discussion.My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Key point during previous AN discussion was that Mr. Konanykhin can not comply with Wikipedia guidelines (even if they wanted ) because they are bound by a confidentiality agreement with their clients. Is it still the case? I understand that it is. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have no interest in his contracts. If he is required to disclose for future edits, it is his problem to set up his contracts. That is not our concern. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jehochman I really disagree with you. Based on what you write here, I have a bridge to sell you! My point being, that in any transaction it makes to sense to be sure that the other party can actually deliver what they promise (ie, you make sure i own the Brooklyn Bridge before you give a million bucks for it). If WikiExperts cannot disclose who their clients are, then their promises to do so are hollow and are even bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• He tells: we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors [12]. It means that they have a number of "their" editors here and can not disclose their COI.My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be surprising, if such an agreement did not have an out for complying with the demands of the privately run website they intend to participate in, but I get your concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban: as I previously said, I would support unban only if WikiExperts agreed to disclose all accounts they use. They've updated their ethics page. It's a step in the right direction, and seems to suggest they won't create or edit articles directly, but it doesn't go far enough. It says they will do their paid advocacy: "Without compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, our clients, and our own enterprise" which strongly suggests they haven't changed their previous position about keeping their accounts and client list private. That's unacceptable. Conditional support only if WikiExperts agrees to publicly identify all past, present, and future accounts of their employees and contractors, disclose all COI relating to their clients, and refrain from editing or creating articles directly. The previous ban was brought up and supported because WikiExperts flagrantly declared their intention not to abide by COI guidelines (see comments such as those on the Signpost recently). If they reverse this position, act transparently about their financial COI, and refrain from direct editing, then they are completely welcome on Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 22:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The original block was based as far as I am aware, on indications that the "editor" would ignore WP policy. In other words, disruptive editing. Also there were a raft of sockpuppetry issues. I note the strong aversion to paid editing, its ethical and practical issues voiced by the community in that closed conversation. I believe user Kudpung was procedurally quite correct in his action. Why not just create a seperate business WP? I believe this is the thin end of the wedge, and the involvement of money, or worst, commercial profit as an incentive to join and edit WP will ultimately doom the project. If WP wishes to sup with the devil, it had better use a very long spoon. Irondome (talk)

• Comment on proposal to lift ban. I think the risk of conflict of interest has to be severe when editors are paid. There are also plenty of unpaid Wikipedia editors who are not just subject to conflict of interest but are driven by special interests of their own, not neutral reporting. I agree that to ban a paid editor merely on a risk basis is itself questionable or perhaps unfair. I think that a paid editor should be required to post every one of his proposed edits on the article's talk page and leave it there for a week before posting it to the article. The talk page post should be clearly labeled as a proposal by a paid editor, with disclosure of his fee.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support the ban (past tense), as enacted, despite procedural problems with the discussion.. Not because he is a paid editor, but because he is a non-repentant sockpuppeteer in control of undisclosed paid accounts. I don't support a flat ban on paid editing, as impracticable, with undesirable obvious consequences. I do support mandatory disclosure of paid-editor status for every account engaged in paid editing, and declaration of banned status on every person in control of an undisclosed paid account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, slander seems very strong, I didn't think my reading of WP:SOCK violation was less than obvious. Perhaps I misunderstand something. If AKonanykhin (talk · contribs) denies being in control of any accounts (whether technical control or by contractual arrangement) used for undisclosed paid editing, then I support unbanning, the ban having no foundation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC). "undisclosed" missing, always intended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I have no idea who you are in real life, but I know exactly who AKonanykhin is, and so does everybody else. We must be careful when talking about people, especially identified people. We've heard people say "sock puppetry" and "its obvious", but is it really? The hand waving doesn't convince me. We need to see the diffs of his sock puppetry. Surely somebody can reference one diff where he's damaging the encyclopedia, if he's been engaging in sock puppetry. I think what we have here is a bunch of loose talk, and then people come along, look at the thread for 30 seconds and say, "Yeah, me too, I hate paid editing." The lesson to all is to dig into the details and look at the evidence before opining about somebody's behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know who AKonanykhin is. I have not looked at that information, as I do not see this discussion as being about AKonanykhin, but about paid-editing in general. AKonanykhin deserves extra credence for speaking up openly, but I'm thinking that not all paid editors are organised by AKonanykhin. "Meat puppetry" and "sockpuppetry" are unfortunately strong pejoratives. We should talk instead of controlling undeclared alternative accounts (accounts clearly linked to the editors main account). We don't encourage this, but we allow it if it is not abused. The checkusers don't actively look for it in the absence of actual problems. I have no evidence or suspicion of AKonanykhin, or any of his writers, having submitted a damaging edit. However, many undisclosed paid editors, working unmonitored, may become damaging. I am keen to see us monitor paid editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

On the unban motion, I agree with Jehochman about procedural concerns with the cited ban discussion. I do not specifically criticise the closer, Kudpung.

AKonanykhin now seems to say that he, and all his professional associates, his paid editors, will publicly disclose their COI/paid editing. This is a major development, changing the situation. Exactly what "publicly disclose COI/paid editing" means, I am not sure, and would like to know. As I stated somewhere else, I think only a minimal disclosure need be mandatory.

Given AKonanykhin's new commitment, I support unbanning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to use of undeclared alternative accounts for good reason. Acceptably good reasons are poorly described, but there are reasons. Paid editing seems to be one reason. I am ambivalent on paid editing; it is a difficult reality for Wikipedia. On careful consideration, I think we must allow/support it, with restrictions, if the paid-editing accounts are disclosed as paid-editing accounts. Now, given that I'm supporting limited paid editing, I can see that it must be acceptable for respected editors who choose to engage in paid editing to use an alternative account that is not connected to their main account. I assume that AKonanykhin has an anonymous main account, and if so, I wouldn't ask him to declare it. If AKonanykhin employs Wikipedia paid editors, it is like meatpuppetry, but I think we must allow him to do this, subject to him committing to requiring his contracted writers to disclose their paid-editing accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban (Support the ban) Agree with SmokeyJoe that paid editing by multiple accounts coodrinated from a single center is a violation of WP:SOCK as meatpuppeting (probably sockpuppeting as well). The only way we could allow paid editing by wikiexperts is if all the involved editors describe the conflict of interests and avoid edit warring. They did not do this so far Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What proof do you need? Wkiexperts themselves claimed that they coordinate hundreds of Wikipedia accounts. Coordinating multiple accounts is of course a form of meatpuppery (if the accounts related to actual people) or sockpuppery (if they do not). Until all those accounts are properly identified and connected to each other for basic srutiny I am opposed to lifting the ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I need diffs showing some of these accounts coming together to corrupt the consensus at a community discussion. For instance, if the Wikiexperts help each others articles survive deletion discussions, we can ban them. If you don't have that evidence, all you have is hearsay and malice. That's not enough to ban somebody. Mere suspicion that somebody might do something wrong is not a reason to ban somebody. Jehochman ^Talk 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But the tune has changed to try and twist out of the penalty. If we say okay, then you open pandoras box upon the website.--MONGO 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd simply ask that you look at the edits made to this person's bio and his various companies. There are clearly a number of paid editors working on those in clear violation of COI and our rules on meat-puppetry. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support unbanning of AKonanykhin and his company, on condition that any accounts used in the future by him, his company, regular employees who edit on its behalf, or its subcontractors are listed on a Wikipedia page (en:User:AKonanykhin would be the obvious place). Naming the clients is unnecessary. —rybec 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support pending full and retroactive disclosure of all accounts. I'm not convinced that this appeal is genuine based on past experience with paid advocates, but disclosure will go a long way towards addressing the concern. MER-C 04:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I disagreed with the reasoning of the original ban, but I hoped that the issue would lead to some sort of consensus on how we should tighten the currently toothless "strongly discouraged" COI wording. It didn't. That said, we need to make it worthwhile for editors to disclose their COIs. Currently, it is in the interest of paid editors to hide their relationship with their clients - they gain nothing from disclosure in spite of leaving themselves open to harassment, and yet risk nothing by non-disclosure. By respecting WikiExpert's offer to disclose their COIs, we finally do the opposite, providing value for the disclosure of COIs that makes it worth their while to do so. It may not work, but I think we should respect the offer and give it a go. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - For what it's worth, I oppose this, since it's clear to me that the purposes of public relations people are antithetical to those of people who are attempting to write a NPOV encyclopedia. PR people serve a valuable purpose to the business community, and I have (indirectly) been the beneficiary of their work, but the usual course of business is that a PR person sends their info to some intermediary (a reporter on a newspaper, for instance), and the reporter decides how much of the info to use. It may provide a guide to the reporter for further investigation, or it may (in probably more cases than we'd like to know) be reported verbatim, but at least it has had the chance to be filtered through an intermediary who can use their independent judgment to weed out the worst of the promotional tendencies of the professional publicist. Reporters who pass along PR without vetting it have a tendency to be fired, or become PR persons themselves, because media outlets live and die by their reputations for accuracy.

  However, when a PR person has direct access to the means of dissemination, as is the case with Wikipedia, there is no longer an effective filter between their output and the encyclopedia. (Those who think that the cumulative result of all editors watching over he encyclopedia is an effective safeguard might be interested in doing a search of the project for "penis" to see the extent of the run-of-the-mill vandalism which hasn't been reverted by such means.) This is where the danger lies. If we allow public relations people to have clear and unfettered access to edit the articles in the encyclopedia, it is inevitable that we will eventually lose whatever reputation we have built up for neutrality and accuracy. Yes, people will still come to Wikipedia for information, since that habit has effectively been formed, but we will no longer be a free source of neutral information, we will be just another media vector for promotion and publicity. Those who think otherwise are, I believe, sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the blatant reality of the situation. Those who protest that we can't effectively police PR misbehavior are like inner-city cops who let crime get out of hand because it was just too hard to keep fighting against it. Yes, obviously, if we were to ban paid editing (as I believe we should) those editors would work overtime to get around our defenses, and that might require some policy changes on our part, such as loosening the restrictions on CheckUser investigations, but new strategies from the opposition require such responses on our part, and using such we can keep PR-fluff to a reasonable level.

  I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of those opposing taking steps against PR-editing are sincere in their beliefs, but I believe that are entirely and utterly wrong. The game changed when Wikipedia became the first stop of choice for many people when they want to get a quick bit of information, and such a vector cannot be ignored by people who live and die by their ability to get out their clients' message to the most people possible. We are no longer amateurs here, regardless of whether we get paid or not, we are professional information providers, and it's our responsibility to see that the information we provide is as accurate and unbiased as possible. To do that in a context where we give free reign to those other professionals, the PR people whose job it is to provide biased and celebratory information, is much more difficult, which is why we should not be unbanning any admitted PR person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is excellent comment. I completely agree. It matters a lot who edits. As someone else said, What is that he does? What is his nature? For example, contributors who are students, journalists, professional researchers or educators are relatively well fitted by their occupation to contribute here (sure, they can have a bias). However, paid professional propagandists are not. They should not be allowed edit here at all, or at least required to disclose their occupation and be closely watched by community. Such is life. Now, speaking about this particular PR company, they are openly telling at their website: Hey, our goal is to undermine Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support. I am very troubled by the statement above that "I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion." This isn't just a matter of deciding that some particular conflict of interest wasn't worth disclosing. Unless I'm very mistaken, this was an ongoing, systematic patter of undisclosed conflicts of interest. This suggests that you had a policy of asking "Am I doing something that doesn't absolutely break the rules" instead of "Am I doing something that (1) is ethical and (2) should be a positive for Wikipedia? I don't mind people being paid to write here, honestly and ethically, on topics of genuinely encyclopedic value that might not otherwise be covered. Writing puff pieces on topics of dubious notability while concealing one's economic interest in the matter is a very different thing. If you need someone to tell you that, it makes me wonder whether you even understand what ethics are. Before lifting the ban, I'd want to see a firm commitment not just to not outright breaking rules but to doing one's best to do intellectually honest work, including that you will be open to do warts-and-all writing. For an example of what I'm talking about, I did a piece about my own great-aunt Lena Levine. I disclosed this connection on the talk page and actively researched to find a citeable source stating that her so-called "consultant bureau for pregnant women" included illegal abortion referrals. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose unban Way too soon given that this was only enacted a few days ago. As this company's conduct amounted to utter contempt for Wikipedia's rules (it's not like WP:COI is anything new, and there's evidence that they were taking steps to avoid being caught out using multiple accounts), we need to see evidence that they're actually willing to abide by our basic terms and conditions before any commitments they make can be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very conditional support. According to their website (as of right now): "As a part of the Wikipedia community ourselves we "talk the talk and walk the walk", confidentially representing our clients in a manner that the community can embrace." (my bolding). It's unchanged from what that page said before the block. To me this implies that they promise their clients that they will perform conflict of interest editing on their behalf while ensuring that no one will be aware of it. It's unethical and a statement of continued intent to evade scrutiny of their edits, unless they now plan to deceive their prospective clients instead of us. I'd need to see exactly how Konanykhin and his company plan to implement yesterday's promised disclosure of their editors' conflict of interest here, because it clearly removes one of their big selling points to clients. Of course, getting himself and his editors banned has removed an even bigger selling point, so they might just decide to go for the lesser of two evils. I also strongly agree with Tryptofish and Bishonen that the original ban was proper one, and it should be immediately reinstated if WikiExperts.us attempt to game it any way. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. Way too soon. And the statement on their talkpage should be followed by corresponding changes to the policies listed on their website. Until that occurs they should stay banned here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'd sooner have WikiExperts in than Wiki-PR, but there's the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem. We understand that, but a lot of the people who have just started something like a social media site for the Bloggui tribe can't see why they're not allowed in, but Facebook is. I don't object to people with what is classed as COI editing - so long as they follow the rules and we get articles and changes that are suitable. Hell, if they are OK, how do we know who they are unless they use a user name like BloggsCoMarketing? How do we set a standard to say WikiForHire can come in, but GetOnWiki can't? Other, that is, than the simple enforcement of the current rules. No corporate accounts, no advertising, notability shown and referenced. Market forces may play a part here - the creators of crap won't get any recommendations from their customers and may be subject to Trading Standards inspection if they claim things they can't deliver, or cash loss if they are foolish enough to offer money-back guarantees... Peridon (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban (and monitor for further SOCK violations), the evidence of wrongdoing in this case is almost entirely circumstantial. Yes paid advocate editors tend to violate NPOV when it suits them, but unless some minimum threshold of evidence is presented that NPOV has in fact been violated I find the punishment to be out of keeping with the crime. AKonanykhin had stated in the past that he didn't intend to abide by the suggestions in the weakly-worded COI guideline. And perhaps the most damning evidence against him is that presented by Atethnekos in the SPI case. But I find AKonanykhin to be much more forthright than many in his position. He has disclosed his affiliations, he has credibly stated that he intends to abide by the site policies, and he is seeking to unblock his account rather than simply sockpuppeting which as we all know is infinitely easier than a request for unban. If there were policies against COI-editing or that mandated disclosure then that would be one thing, but under the current rules there is no evidence that what he has actually done is ban-worthy. If Wikipedia wants to impose bans for this kind of editing behavior then it has to get its house in order first. There are currently 3 proposed policies on this topic which I see receiving large opposition. Voters seem to jump at the chance to vote down imperfect proposals rather than to vote up the best of them. The result is that none of these proposals will pass. If we can't get our act together then we can't hold third parties to our heightened personal standards. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm strongly sympathetic to the requirement for AKonanykhin to declare all sock and meat accounts too. My unban vote isn't conditional on this, but I do think it is a very reasonable imposition. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not circumstantial, when based on writings of the blocked/banned party - and writings of the blocked/banned party are always the only evidence. Every block/ban decision is a predicted calculation of present and future risks, including logical inferences from the present facts. As for "our house in order," every user has the responsibity for our house's order (see, eg. [13]) -- that's why the Pedia sometimes blocks/bans. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his unsubstantiated claims that if push came to shove he would elect not to heed WP:COI's suggestions are quite clearly circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing. They may possibly be direct evidence of his lack of moral compass or perhaps even his intent to do wrong things, but intent is an exacerbating factor when it comes to COI/NPOV violations and it is rarely if ever an essential element of the wrongdoing. Furthermore he has controverted this evidence with an explanation that he does not read the guidelines as defining his actions as "wrong". I have to say the weak wording of the present guideline sadly strengthens his claims. There's an ocean of difference between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" even when it's written in bold. That's what I mean when I say that we must get our act together before imposing bans like this. Until we can agree as a community that paid-advocacy-editing is forbidden (not just discouraged) as a matter of policy, it's unfair to hold editors to this elevated non-consensus standard even when direct evidence exists (as it doesn't in this case) that they have actually engaged in conflicted editing. I personally think disclosure should be mandatory, but that is only my personal opinion, not yet policy. By the look of the three ongoing proposed policy discussions it will probably never become policy. -Thibbs (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not unsubstantiated claims, they are acknowledged evidence of past and future acts (and whether those acts are discouraged or forbidden makes no difference - either way they should not be done); and they are credible given the statements that were made and the actions they described. As for whether the User was mistaken, that is the risk one takes when one chooses to skate the edge - the lesson there is 'do not skate the edge.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Where have these claims been substantiated? Are there any diffs that can be provided that will show that AKonanykhin bridged the distance between simply saying that he would not take the suggestions offered in COI and actually editing in violation COI/NPOV? Because that's what I mean by "substantiated". His words would have to take substance in the form of edits for me to considered them as factual proof of misdeeds. If no such evidence exist and all we have is intent without a crime then we are punishing thoughts. -Thibbs (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Camper-mann adds promotional material and removes negative information from the Alex Konanykhin article [14]. Camper-mann continues to infringe rules against promotional editing (all related to Alexander Konanykhin), and is subsequently blocked for inserting advertising into Wikipedia [15]. After initially denying any wrongdoing, when confronted with the evidence, User:AKonanykhin says "As for User:Camper-mann, his actions were a very long time ago, in February of 2009. To be honest, I may well have sought out an editor at that time to adjust our pages, long before I ever got into the Wikipedia editing business. Obviously that user did a bad job." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts&diff=577308061&oldid=577187191).

When User:AKonanykhin was first confronted with the concerns of infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user should have come clean, admitted the errors and committed to not doing it again. Why did the user not do this? The answer is obvious: User:AKonanykhin hoped that those users (like User:My very best wishes) previously involved with the Camper-mann etc. investigations would not show up for the discussion and that the evidence of previous misdeeds would not be seen. It was only when these hopes were dashed that the concessions occured. I call this lying: Using falsehoods to gain an advantage. This is an obvious cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL, a policy which rightly enjoins every editor to act honestly. The same is the case with the promise to disclose conflicts of interest. User:AKonanykhin user previously said it "cannot" be done [16], but now says it can. How is it possible that it both can and cannot be done? The answer is obvious: Either User:AKonanykhin was lying then, and hoped that the community would accept that it cannot be done even when he knew it can, or is lying now and hopes that the community will believe that any disclosures he does will be full disclosures, even when he knows that they won't be. Either way, this is another cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are significant chronological holes in this argument. AKonanykhin only made the statement that he would ignore COI's recommendations in the interest of his clients a week or so ago. I don't think he has had time to make good on his claim yet. The diffs you offered actually predate AKonanykhin's having even joined (and thus implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules of) Wikipedia. Likewise as far as I know he hasn't yet had an opportunity to demonstrate that he won't make full disclosures although he said he would so your accusation that he is a liar seems to be as premature as the ban. That AKonanykhin would have violated COI and that he would have failed to make full disclosures remain hunches, assumptions, and speculative projections. Holding him accountable for the actions of another person from nearly 2 years before he even joined the project goes a step too far. I think some kind of actual misdeed should precede a ban, not a gaze into the crystalball to nail him for future crimes. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not say assertorically that User:AKonanykhin is lying on that count. Rather, I say disjunctively that either the user is lying on that count or the user lied when it was said that disclosures cannot be done. How can one sincerely promise to do something but also believe in one's heart that it cannot be done? Such could not be a sincere promise. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's no more a lie than my statement that "It's impossible to force an advocate editor to disclose because we have no policy mandating this" will be a lie once such a policy is adopted. When AKonanykhin made his initial statement he was accurately reflecting his company policies as written. Now that they have been rewritten he has changed his claim, but that doesn't make his previous claim a lie. You're not presenting the full picture. -Thibbs (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When editors first complained to User:AKonanykhin about not following disclosure requirements, the user's response was to say that it "cannot" be done, and that such disclosures would be unethical, and would put clients at a competitive disadvantage (because others would not disclose despite the requirements) [17] [18]. And this is in a context of a "crusade" or "jihad" supposedly being waged by Jimbo Wales and other editors against (partially) the user and WikiExperts, in which is a prerogative to avoid scrutiny [19]. Then the user is banned. And then also the user sees that other users will largely only agree to lifting the ban if these disclosure requirements are agreed to. So, when, in the mind of User:AKonanykhin, did agreeing to these requirements stop being an unethical concession which simply cannot be done in this holy war? Your theory is that the hyperbolic claims of it being unethical were the sincere beliefs of User:AKonanykhin, but then he coincidentally changed these sincere beliefs right when doing so would allow an unban. My theory is that he was or is being insincere at some point, either then or now. That's not me failing to give the full picture, that's me having a different interpretation of motivation than you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban - the ban was implemented by the community, and I do not see any good reason why this one user should not be subjected to it. GiantSnowman 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, please show me one diff where they have done something wrong to an article. One diff and I will shut up. Aren't you an administrator? Do you look at evidence, or do you just ban people who you don't like? Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the principle of the matter. A ban has been enacted by the community as a whole; the burden is now on you/AKonanykhin to show why the ban should be lifted. FYI, your "do you just ban people who you don't like?" comment makes you sound like a stroppy teenager, or wose. GiantSnowman 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Giantsnowman - was this meant for the section above?--v/r - TP 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, this thread is too bloody long! GiantSnowman 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I could care less whether AKonanykhin gets unbanned. My concern is that we the Wikipedia Communittee act ethically. The ban was improperly placed. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented, and the closing admin misjudged consensus badly. There need to be diffs of wrongful editing. We do not place bans for political reasons. Bans are for repeated disruption of the encyclopedia, not for suspicion or simple dislike for a person. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of puppetry (meat vs. sock being unclear). There is plenty of evidence of folks editing articles related to this person and company with a COI. And there is evidence that he was ignoring COI and plenty of evidence that he intended to continue to do so. How is that not enough for a ban? That said, if he's willing to fix those things and identify all COI (past and future) I'm fine with removing the ban. But this isn't a ban based purely on "suspicion or simple dislike". Hobit (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: - where have I said I dislike this person? FWIW I think he's actually come across rather well. Your lack of good faith is disturbing. GiantSnowman 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients.My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban - I'm agreeing with the opening statement of the initial flimsy case, and maintain my view that they shouldn't ever have been banned. Not only that, but the user in question has very clearly made attempts to line themselves up with the majority of the policies. I've seen several users publicly state that they will reject policies as they see fit on their user page/talk pages, without any action; another sign of double standards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is not about the user, but about this user and his company. Did this user and his "friends" follow policies, in particular WP:SOAP? No, they have been heavily involved in promotion using multiple accounts [20], [21], [22], [23], exactly as they suppose to be as PR people. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• You're going to have to do more than show a few 2008 and 2009 transgressions to convince me. As for Eclipsed, the only recent account, almost all of the articles they've written have plenty of references, and I'm not seeing many deleted for being non-notable, or being pure puff pieces. In fact, even AKonanykhin's own article isn't a pure puff piece, given the presence of two immigration trial sections. These articles are less biased than a large amount of those written by non-paid authors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking about their "merits" per WP:IAR, we do not know it, because we do not know who and what edited on their behalf. However, their presence caused significant disruption: these two huge AN discussions and a couple of earlier ANI discussions I remember. That's for sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since when was the number of AN/ANI discussions even remotely a relevant factor? Several editors in very good standing have had multiple AN/ANI threads opened against them. Should we ban them essentially because other people have issues with them, even though these users are contributing effectively and well? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And a lot of other people were banned, because they created more disruption (unhelpful discussions on ANI and other places) than contributed positively to content. In this particular case, we simply do not know if this organization contributed positively to the project at all (we are talking about organization) because we do not know who their editors are and what they did, just as few people knew much about Wiki-PR, until their actions have been investigated. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to WikiPR are not warranted here, as the two are indeed very different in their approach to policy and Wikipedia in general. No two paid editors are cut from the same cloth and we shouldn't try to categorize them. KonveyorBelt 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - arbitrary break

• Strongest possible oppose I'm seriously thinking of retiring. Wikipedia has fallen so far that now we allow and encourage paid editing and corporate interference with our articles. We no longer have any integrity left. The way we are heading, I no longer have much respect for this place as an independent source, or a project that I can put my time into. I have always admired our integrity and ability to call bullshit when it comes to conflict of interest editing, but in the last several years we have rolled over and let ourselves become nothing more than a giant billboard for hundreds of different companies. The lack of a good COI/Paid Editing policy, policies such as "outing" that are exploited in situations such as this, and strong, deep COI inflitration. This group of editors has abused our sockpuppetry policy, our notability guidelines, and our policy on using Wikipedia for advertising, like hardly anyone else in our history. If there has ever been somebody to ban it is WikiExperts. Under no circumstances should they be allowed anywhere near our articles. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a battleground, and therefore we need not "prevent them at all costs" or worry about "infilteration". KonveyorBelt 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Themfromspace: If you can't make your point without needless profanity, hyperbole, and threats to resign you might consider taking a break. We don't need this sort of diatribe in the midst of a rational conversation. The community is deeply divided over paid editing. We can't even agree on a policy, yet. We need to find common ground. Treating this topic as a battle is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no hyperbole. Infiltration by advertisers, which is happening, is the greatest threat to our integrity that we face outside of the longterm decline in neutral editors. This is something we need to say NO to. Loudly. Anything less is unacceptable. This is not a battleground mentality, it is an antivandalism mentality. ThemFromSpace 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What has changed? Advertisers started "infiltrating" Wikipedia over a decade ago. We have robust policies and processes to deal with that issue. Nothing has changed except a group of users have started a mass hysteria. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. Maybe one banned editor soured me on paid editing forever. But what I saw was (and still is, as I'm sure that banned editor is still socking away), was pure advocacy for profit. Doc talk 16:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Doc9871: If you are going to denounce a named, living person, you need evidence. Can you please show me the evidence of sock puppetry? This is a rumor that's been oft repeated but never substantiated. Where's the sockpuppetry report? Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, I was not referring to this editor. I was alluding to MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs), an editor that started out openly promising on elance to create and "maintain" articles for money, creating any notability required as a WP "expert". Sorry for the confusion; I've mentioned MPF in so many comments concerning this issue that I took it for granted that it would be understood that he was who I meant. My bad. Doc talk 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements will be followed. http://www.wikiexperts.us/en/ethics That may address some of the concerns expressed previously. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't mean this particular banned user, FWIW. I don't see how WikiExperts is going to make much money if they abide by the same rules for content that we all do. Paid editing is usually about promoting your product, ensuring notability and keeping out all the negative stuff. Meh. Doc talk 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• We're trying to discuss whether to unban this particular user, not the general principle of paid editing. There are a couple policy proposals pending. Please do help us resolve them! Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Doc - paid editing can also be moving a process along that would otherwise wait for a disinterested editor to come to at some point. For example, removing primary sources used to cite negative information (someone hated their spaghetti, blogged about it, and then updated a Wikipedia entry for an Italian restaurant that managed to escape CSD). Or it could be writing a new article for a person who has plenty of references but has not had anyone on Wikipedia get around to writing an article about yet. Or it could be handling any other perfectly legitimate concern without some silly PR rep bludgeoning it because they don't understand our processes.--v/r - TP 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no difference between this guy's firm and this one. I think we're screwed with companies like this around and more popping up. They are just going to sock to evade detection when they realize that they pretty much have to. Really look at what they promise to do. This sort of paid editing is, IMHO, totally against what the encyclopedia is for. Doc talk 21:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But your making an assumptions and then making a factual comment about the assumptions. ie "A could be B, and B is really bad, so A is really bad."--v/r - TP 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Are you being unfairly treated on Wikipedia? Our Crisis Editing team helps you navigate contentious situations. We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins. And we'll engage on Wikipedia's back end, so you never have to worry about being libeled on Wikipedia." My emphasis on "and admins". Like I said: we're screwed already with this. Doc talk 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And the "mission statement" of WikiExperts is just so wrong. "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Seriously?! "Strangers" can't edit "your" article? An unbelievably stupid fucking joke is what that is. Doc talk 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A user tearing down the first and fourth Pillars of Wikipedia. Perhaps the community should play Delilah in this drama?

• This seems to be more of the same behavior from the user. As documented above [24], User:AKonanykhin, when first told of WP:Sock puppetry violations, denied; and then, when shown the evidence, conceded. Now we see here the same behaviour: When first told of COI disclosure requirements, user denied and said this was not contractually possible [25], but now that the community presses, the user has conceded. This seems to be a pattern with this user of using falsehoods to try to get benefits. This is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars. Which of course makes sense: User fully admits to being here not with the end goal of making a better encyclopedia, but with the end goal of making better money. It's become increasingly clear in my mind that when the interests of this encyclopedia get in the way of the interests of this user, this user sacrifices the former for the sake of the latter. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• You've misrepresented what they've said. That "is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars." What he said was, that he has rewritten the contract for his future customers which allows for open declaration of a COI and disclosure of whom he is working for. He's still contractually obligated not to reveal the others unless he can contact those customers and negotiate an amendment.--v/r - TP 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• If what you are saying about the meaning is true, then either the falsehood is the same as I identify, or it is even worse! Either User:AKonanykhin has dropped, or will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the previous statement that disclosure "cannot" be done was the same falsehood. Or, User:AKonanykhin has neither dropped, nor will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the promise to meet disclosure requirements is a shameless lie! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Or it's not a "shameless lie" at all and your continued rhetoric only serves to obscure and derail factual discussion. Business doesn't happen overnight. A promise from the CEO to change business practices takes time to renegotiate contracts. Your confusing unrealistic idealism with legitimate business expectations. Please stop doing that. Be realistic and quit accusing them of being liars simply because they cannot snap their fingers and make it all happen in an instant.--v/r - TP 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I never intend to use rhetoric, I only intend to give the facts as I see them, to the best of my ability. I don't expect anyone to make anything happen in an instant. I assumed that your interpretation was not the case. According to User:Jehochman, who I take to be trustworthy on this matter, User:AKonanykhin now intends to meet disclosure requirements ([26]). As I said, either they do intend to meet the disclosure requirements, in which case their previous statement that this "cannot" be done, was a falsehood, or they do not intend to meet disclosure requirements, in which case the current promise is indeed a shameless lie. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You yourself are tearing down pillars, namely 3 and 5. KonveyorBelt 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure is not a "requirement". It is a recommendation. They've agreed to follow (not meet) disclosure recommendations (not requirements). WP:COI "you are advised to...provide full disclosure of the connection".--v/r - TP 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the wording Jehochman ascribed to the user: "The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements". If there is a real difference between the meaning of "following requirements" and "meeting requirements", just read "following" whenever I have said "meeting". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Question. When the company says it will abide by the COI guideline, does that mean it will disclose its accounts and require its contractors to refrain from editing articles directly (as the guideline advises)? Or is it offering something more restricted than that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Same here. @Jehochman, I'll believe it when I see it. So now their ethics page says "including Conflict of Interests (COI) disclosure requirements" although their "Why us" page continues to promise their clients confidentiality. There's enormous scope for gaming this. As you and several others have been at pains to point out, our COI guidelines don't explicitly require disclosure. However, quite a few of the editors in this discussion who do not outright oppose lifting the ban, require declarations of COI from this group of editors, and for well-founded reasons. None of their editors are banned from editing their talk pages. It would be a good start if each of them declared their conflict of interest on their talk pages now and AKonanykhin linked to those talk pages on his talk page so that this can be verified. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm tired of being a middleman in this discussion. I'm not his spokesman. Please go talk to AKonanykhin directly. This is why it was so stupid to ban him. It's hard for concerned editors to talk to the guy when he can't even edit his talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• His block log doesn't indicate that his talk page access has been revoked, and indeed, he has edited it 4 times it since he was blocked. I'm also quite sure he's reading this discussion, as are his employees. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support unban. I have yet to encounter a cogent argument for the position that paid editing creates a bias that is somehow more problematic than any of the other myriads of biases all editors are influenced by, and, so justifies special treatment. I see no reason to address any particular bias, including this particular bias. Regardless of what an editor's biases are (and it's a matter of what the biases are, not if there are any), what matters is that the edits are made in compliance with NPOV and our other content-oriented guidelines and polices. WP:AGF, anyone? And, yes, paid editors can edit in good faith. --B2C 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, an editor who was simply paid can edit in good faith. However, an editor who was paid to conduct propaganda type editing (and that is what PR companies do) should not be allowed to edit per WP:SOAP. Well, perhaps they might edit per WP:IAR, but only if they openly disclose their affiliation prior to any incidents resulting in blocks, such as promotional editing of Mr. Konanykhin biography (see my links above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes (talk · contribs), edits in violation of WP:SOAP are violations of SOAP regardless of whether they are motivated by payment, and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no need for a separate sanction targeting paid editing. Since there is no reason to disclose any other bias (like one's race when editing an article about race, or one's religion when editing a religious article, or one's political leanings when editing a political article), there is no reason to disclose the specific bias created by paid editing. Attempting to do so resolves nothing and pushes the behavior even more underground. Let's show a little more faith in our content-guarding policies and guidelines like NPOV, Notability, WP:IRS, and, yes, WP:SOAP. --B2C 05:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not about bias. An editor who belongs to an outside organization makes promotional edits (including removal of important reliably sourced information - yes, I saw this a number of times, and this is the reason I do not edit in certain subject areas) not because he has a bias, but because he was told to do them by his superiors. He acts as a proxy. He acts essentially as a meatpuppet. Therefore, the disclosure is necessary.My very best wishes (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do not mind when people work for educational or scientific organizations (although a disclosure would be appropriate/necessary even in such cases), but when it comes to political PR, such as removal of well-sourced information about crime, no. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I question the prohibitions on meat puppetry as well. But that's a bias too... it's a bias favoring the views of the meat. I don't care why people edit as they do - I care whether the result of their edits -- the affected content -- is in compliance with our content-specific policies and guidelines. That's it. --B2C 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose (of unban)
  • The current proposal is based on the proposition that, since there were few diffs given during the banning discussion, the rules on banning were ignored. There are no rules that require diffs during the banning discussion. There was clear and solid evidence -AK's own statements made in the media and posted on his own website, that he had violated the rules of Wikipedia hundreds of times, and that he intended to keep on violating our rules. His statements on this page were enough to show meat-puppeting. The ban was quite proper.
  • I don't find User:AKonanykhin's statement that he would follow the rules in the future at all convincing. There are no details showing that he knows what he did wrong. There is no acknowledgement or reporting of the history of what he's done wrong, so that we can't easily correct his advertising and promotion. He needs to disclose his clients and contractors, and give dates and articles. His claim that he can't disclose because of contracts he's signed is self-serving, and any such contract provisions would be unenforceable as it is public policy in the US that promotional and advertising claims must disclose the relationship between the sponsor and the person making the claim (if it is not obvious that the person making the claims (here- the editor) is working for the advertiser).
  • Konanykhin's website wikiexperts.us is currently breaking the law by making false advertising claims. For example he currently promises his clients to "Increase the visibility and credibility of your company, brand, or product by creating or improving your Wikipedia presence." He cannot deliver on these promises for at least two reasons: 1) promotion is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia; and 2) he and his employees are currently banned from editing on Wikipedia. If he continues to make false advertising claims on his own website and break the US law on deceptive advertising, even after he is banned here, how can we expect him to follow the rules here. At a minimum, he needs to take down his advertising of Wikipedia editing services on his own site, before we can even consider unbanning him.
  • Two more example from wikiexperts.us of deceptive advertising (the first also promises POV editing)
    • "Article Monitoring and Repair: When someone edits your article, WikiExperts are alerted immediately. Our staff reviews the article to check whether it is still objective, representative and above all, not unduly damaging to your brand’s image. If needed, the changes are reversed."
    • "Updates: Just as your business is dynamic, so too should be your Wikipedia entry. Every time your company’s situation changes, we will update your article, applying the same care to keep it compliant with Wikipedia policies." (How can he update an article - compliant with Wikipedia policies - when he is banned?)

Smallbones<subj>(smalltalk) 20:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting argument. However, he acts rationally. Why change their web site? He overcame Russian justice, INS, FBI and US Department of Justice. Sure thing, he can deal with Wikipedia. I am looking forward seeing him and his people around. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Why change their web site?" because he is breaking the law if he doesn't. It's pretty simple. Is your argument really that he should not be held to Wikipedia's rules and US law, like any other person, simply because he has won some cases in court? It seems like an incredibly cynical argument - "because we can get away with it" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am simply trying to explain why they did not bother to fix their web site (yet) - from their perspective. They think they will edit here no matter what, I believe. Let's see if this unblock passes. If it does, I am right. If it does not, they will do something else (possibly new statements and yet another request for unblock). My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Qualified support for an unban. On the one hand, I (and I believe I speak for many here) don't like the idea of unbanning known paid editors—paid editing is distasteful and disruptive, and can be fairly assumed to carry a certain level of bad faith. I say that last part in that the ultimate goal of a paid editor is to get paid, rather than improve the encyclopedia—that's my distinction between "bad" paid editing and acceptable paid editing (e.g. the reward board, or paid Wikipedian-in-Residence positions at GLAMs, et cetera). That being said, given that we cannot prevent all paid editing, it is in our interests to bring it "above-ground" as much as possible. By allowing paid editors some freedom when they disclose their actions and are subject to scrutiny, we ultimately gain greater control over paid editing's influence because it can be measured and regulated more effectively. It also gains us greater leeway to penalize paid editors who try to slip under the radar and fail, since there'd be an established best practice that they are demonstrably trying to circumvent.
  The freedom that I believe paid editors should enjoy when their work is disclosed and meets our standards is tempered by greater freedom on our part to block and ban paid editors who do not meet these standards. If a paid editor is found to also be operating "underground" or operating sock puppets, etc., that should result in an immediate and permanent ban. We cannot tolerate behaviour that is manifestly in bad faith. For that matter, if paid editors produce poor-quality work, we should not be tolerant of that, because it can produce so much clean-up work for our unpaid volunteers. I'd support a "sticky proposed deletion" process analogous to those for BLPs.
  I'm rambling, so TL;DR: Unban this time, and let's move to incentivizing good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour more consistently in the future, please. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply a poor-quality work is not a forbidden, unless an editor is utterly incompetent. It does not really matter that these editors are paid. However, they work for a propaganda/PR company. That should be forbidden per WP:SOAP.My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support unban, not because I like PR companies editing, but because we can either A unban and have all PR accounts disclosed, or B don't unban and drive PR accounts underground. It's very simple. Ross Hill (talk) 00:49, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Despite the disclaimer on their "ethics page": "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Does anyone here seriously not see how this statement sums it all up? It's astounding. Doc talk 07:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Firm Oppose. Per Smallbones and Nyttend. While some people here claim that the banning process was "flawed," the fact that it's an editor with his own article we're talking about here, who has made repeated intentions of violating WP policy, and suddenly seeking an unban roughly two weeks after Kudpung closing it? Jeez, as per Nyttend, try going off the grid for six months!

I agree with Smallbones' points on the subject being alerted of possible edits to a client article and their people will fix it. That's already owning it in my book and they dare other people to edit client articles. AKonanykin's making a really stupid facade of declaring that his company will suddenly follow all WP guidelines despite all his rhetoric about violating them, hypocrite much? An unban will only play into his hands.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban per two points:

1. I call shenanigans, basically. I believe AKonanykhin is a good businessperson and will do what good businesspeople do, which is serve the needs of their paying clients. What they have stated they do for their clients seems patently incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. I just don't believe their culture, aims and methods can turn on a word like that. I read the latest on AKonanykhin's User Talk and there's a lot of "Yes, but..." there setting up loopholes. Yes, WP:AGF but also AGF is not a suicide pact.
2. Where are the diffs? - Several commentors here supporting the unban have asked for diffs showing the ban is justified. However, this is not another !vote on banning. This is an UNBAN vote. We normally only grant an appeal to lift a ban after it has been demonstrated that the editor can contribute productively and in line with Wikipedia's rules. Where are the diffs demonstrating this? If AKonanykhin provides a complete list of their paying clients and accounts the company uses, and demonstrates that well-sourced content that meets Wikipedia's content policies but reflects badly on their paying clients won't be challenged or removed, I might reconsider.

Zad68 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban As someone else wrote, "I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Wikipedia is." Paid editing is advertising, and Wikipedia does not allow ads. John Nagle (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, hiring of an experienced participant by a business can be a bribery - if the payment alters to the worse editing behavior of the recipient.My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Unban with proviso that all Paid COI edits must be identified on talk pages of affected articles, under penalty of return to banned status. The marketing of this company implies NPOV is the least of their worries. We need to make sure that it is on their radar, and the only way to do that is if we know where to look. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to unban this account. We can talk about why that is for months. Doc talk 11:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support unban: As much as I am opposed to paid editing, as it truly does undermine the spirit of Wikipedia, I am unconvinced by arguments that this ban should stay in place. If the ban was to be kept in place until a promise to declare conflict-of-interest was made, then there really is no reason to keep the ban in place. A lot of the arguments to keep the ban in place revolve around the implicit mistrust we have in paid editors, and that in many cases may be well founded. However we set a ban in place and gave specific guidance as to how it could be removed, and if we do not follow through on our word here, then we are just as untrustworthy. Do we really set expectations for people without meaning them? Do we really set bans or blocks in place with instructions as to how it can be removed, then reneg on those terms when someone complies?

It appears that a major concern is that we have no idea whether or not the company will comply with the terms of the unban. I’m a little sceptical of that line of argumentation. If they are unbanned and hey, look, there doesn’t seem to be any Wikiex account anywhere doing anything whatsoever, I think we’ll have our answer—they’re not following the rules. And if contributions do pop up, we’ll know immediately if we need to revert them or not. So I think we can see pretty easily whether or not to trust the company’s word if there is future disclosure, or if there is not. Considering all we have to go off right now is a couple of stale diffs from before the editors went into business that would be very beneficial in terms of seeing what potential problem lies here. On top of that, we can see what their editing patterns are and if we want, continue searching for problem patterns that might have popped up elsewhere, and address such patterns as they arise. So if they can’t provide past accounts, I don’t see the issue personally, as if they were problem accounts we’ll find them. Wikipedia isn’t fragile or incompetent, we can easily see if the unban should stay or a ban reimposed by a small sample size of disclosed edits. So again, no reason to reneg on our word. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Real problem here is not paid editing, but use of multiple accounts by the same organization when every individual account acts as company's proxy. Yes, I agree, such bans can be appealed, but only under one standard condition: complete disclosure of all their current accounts to asses potential damage (or possibly benefits) of their activities. Actually, we have this below with regard to another company: This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that XYZ as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• A standard could be set, but I don’t see where it has. I’ve reread the ban again and it does not mention retroactive disclosure, so are we not moving the goal posts here? In retrospect, if the ban had included retroactive disclosure, the vote could have turned out differently. In addition, if the ban had not included a clear pathway to reinstatement, again the vote could have turned out quite differently. There is no way of knowing if the ban would have been agreed to with the new standard of retroactive disclosure. It’s not that retroactive disclosure is a bad idea, it’s that no one agreed that it would be necessary. I dislike these types of people as much as anybody, and would prefer no paid editing whatsoever on Wikipedia. But the language used was pretty specific, and ignoring that language in favour of new conditions strikes me as strange.

The other thing that bothers me is the assumption of bad faith in past edits, which was also not a part of the ban. You mention WikiPR, where there is evidence of bad faith edits, but this case provides none. For all our searching (I’ve done some myself too) I can’t find examples of bad faith editing—and definitely nothing that would make me feel comfortable with establishing new conditions for unbanning. Maybe that’s all beside the point though, because from what I read the ban doesn’t state anywhere that there was an assumption of bad faith edits. It only states that it was unethical (and, quite frankly, abhorrent) to lambaste Wikipedia in the way that it was happening and at the same time not disclose accounts that could prove good faith editing. The logic behind this wasn’t that the company must be editing badly, but that we didn’t trust it to edit without supervision. Anyhow, I’m uncomfortable with the apparent shape-shifting of the argument not to unban and the setting of new conditions that did not appear in the ban, as when I apply the arguments here to the ban language, I feel it is starting to slip away from the original decision (which I agreed with, by the way). I think that is dangerous for the long-term development of a paid editing policy that keeps Wikipedia safer, as it doesn’t show continuity in our decisions. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF policy is only about individuals, not organizations. Importantly, even though we have AGF, we also can and should trace contributions by individual editors to identify those who actually damage the project - this happens all the time. When it comes to corporations, there is an additional dimension: activities of people who work on behalf of the same organization are normally coordinated from the same center. Is it an illegal coordination? We do not really know without having their disclosure. We can't AGF that activities of between different people from the same corporation are uncoordinated because they usually are, almost by definition. Yes, I believe they must make retroactive disclosure as a precondition of their unban, so we can check they did not do damage like Wiki-PR. Did this particular user and his employees were actually engaged in doubtful coordinated activities? Yes, at least four their accounts (one of them blocked) edited biography of Mr. Konanykhin. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a point of interest, nowhere in WP:AGF does it state what you are implying it does. Groups of people are not treated differently from people by the policy, which is besides the point, as I was only pointing out that there was no breach of WP:AGF retroactively in the ban language and that therefore I find that imposing it now is contrary to our mission—which is to root out any potential problem we might have. I am clearly not saying that no tracing should occur, I in fact stated that we can trace patterns much more easily if damage exists by allowing ourselves a recent sample of their edits. As a complete aside, I’m not sure that making charges of illegal activity is in line with WP:LEGAL, as you are implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed. But I could be wrong on that.

Really, I agree with you that perhaps in the future retroactive disclosure requests could be made a part of any cban. But it wasn’t in this case, and again, I think that trying to impose it regardless doesn’t respect the original community consensus. Is there evidence enough to ignore the consensus and impose new sanctions? The evidence you present for unconstructive editing is pretty old. One is an attempt to post material that was shut down pretty easily by us four years ago, and which occurred before the company we are talking about came to being. The second is a case where conflict of interest was actually disclosed, so the policy we’re trying to imposed (and rightfully so) wasn’t circumvented. That second edit was just to add a photo, I would add, and one we still have on the Commons and in use. I’d want to see far more in terms of recent, damaging diffs to determine the impact of this situation on the site, and in fact, believe that we will never be able to determine such potential damage if we do not respect the language of the original consensus and disallow ourselves the ability to see what new edits we receive. That’s fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our backs. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did you find that I am "implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed"? I never said anything even close. I only said somewhere that I saw how certain editors remove well-sourced negative information (including information about crime) from articles about certain rich/influential living people and organizations, and I am sure this is COI problem. Unfortunately, based on my experience here, this is all unprovable (no one declares their COI in political subjects of course), can't be fixed, and only will get me banned. So I would rather avoid editing these subjects, and that is exactly what I actually did.My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• The original ban stated [27]:

"The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases."

People might argue in how to interpret the first "will", but to me it's stating the company's editors must disclose that they have been paid to edit articles prior to the ban and that any new employees must do so if/when the ban is lifted. It does not require that they name their clients, although that can be reasonably inferred from the articles they have edited since 2010. In fact, although they later attempted to make that information harder to find, several of them had been openly declared, along with their articles. See for example, User:Eclipsed here, here (uncollapse the thread). The user pages of two of the four editors whom Eclipsed "adopted" (and at one point referred to as his "team"): [28], [29]. All four editors can be found here. See also here (uncollapse the "Declarations"). Plus this user after this. I will notify all the editors I've mentioned here, although apart from Eclipsed, they now appear to be inactive. There is another editor who is almost certainly from WikiExperts who has extensively edited WikiExperts.us as well as all the other articles on Konanykhin's various companies, his wife, her associates, etc. I won't name them here as they have made no attempt to declare their COI. Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for Disclosure

What if: We have the editors who work for WikiExperts create separate COI accounts, like WMF staff members, that they use while making edits for WikiExperts? For example, if I were employed by them (which is not to say that I am, because I'm not), I would use User:TParis (WikiExperts) for all paid editing by WikiExperts and User:TParis for all of my normal editing. Using the WMF Staff member model, this could make it very clear which edits are by WikiExperts. The way it stands now, if we identify who their editors and customers are, we still do not know if each, and which, individual edits are being paid for or not. This solution would take all the ambiguity away. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as being maybe workable. That is provided these individuals actually do any editing that isn't for pay. There could be a bit of a blurry line, though, if I as a paid editor (which I am not) were to, perhaps, try to add some information on the topic of my COI to marginally related articles. An example might be trying to add a link to my business' building (which may or may not be prominent in the community) to the article on the city in which it exists, or something like that. Such edits might be seen as problematic if the editor, reasonably, thought the building should be mentioned, which perhaps it might be, but others, just as reasonably, might disagree regarding the amount or location of such content. In such cases, to what degree might COI be considered relevant, and, as a secondary concern, to what degree might, potentially, problematic paid editors (which would probably include only a comparatively small number) seek to excuse such problematic edits with this perhaps dubiously defensible reason? John Carter (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This leads directly to witch hunting. If an editor sees they are paid 10/10 times thy will revert. If they explicitly state in their names they are a paid pr firm they will be reported to ANI and generally harassed. KonveyorBelt 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not exactly. I've been paid to write articles and I've even managed to get them put on DYK: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dennis_Lo.--v/r - TP 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• It has been my experience the Wikipedia community is actually protective of COI editors who follow the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Konveyor, you keep making claims about disclosure leading to harassment, but you never point to any specific examples. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• User:CorporateM is out and proud and manages to get the job done. No doubt it is very much more uncomfortable and difficult to do it that way than to simply hide, but he/she nevertheless behaves ethically. Like TP, above. We could make it easier for them by reviewing their talk page requests and WP:AFC submissions in a timely manner. But we can't welcome a team here that openly defies community-agreed norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not persuaded that we actually need it to be part of the username for the account, the way that "(WMF)" is used, but I do believe strongly that some kind of identification is needed, perhaps by way of userpage disclosure. I don't really buy the argument directly above, about inevitable reverting of good edits, because that's what discussion and consensus are for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this. Might be a good way to go with all paid editing. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this ban can be lifted if they provide list of all their accounts (here and right now), so that everyone will be able to check what exactly they are doing. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Other paid editors, such as WWB, have used this method successfully. Steven Walling • talk 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that the affiliation of paid editor should be in his/her username; disclosure upfront (like scientists with COI do in their scientific papers) is the way to go... don't bury the information. As volunteer editors our time here is precious, and I for one don't want to be suspicious of everybody I am working on an article with, to the point where I go check their pages to see who they are when there are disagreements. I think too that all their paid editing accounts should be listed on one page, so that it is easy to find the relevant editors and audit their compliance, for any editor or admin who wants to see how well they are keeping their promises (assuming we un-ban them) Responding to User:Konveyor Belt. I know what it is like to be witch-hunted, so please know that I am sympathetic with that concern. But we need to work toward compromise and consensus, and it would be helpful if you acknowledged that there is a big chunk of the community that is really concerned about paid editing - we need to work toward solutions everybody can live with and avoid exaggerations like "10/10 times they would be reverted." I hope you can see that.... Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a general solution in such cases, but not in this particular case, where I think the ban should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - every paid editor should indicate their allegiance otherwise it constitutes violation of WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a violation of sock unless the employer asks all its employees to work together to subvert consensus. If there are 100 employees of Apple editing Wikipedia, which there probably are, should we block all of them for sock puppetry (starting with User:Alison who freely discloses her Apple affiliation)? Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense. Now, if we can just get User:Dickhead (Bigot) and User:Nice person (Acupuncturist) to fall into line when editing race or acupuncture articles, respectively, life will be much simpler here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Really this sounds no stronger a policy or guideline than just requiring the user to create an account with that companies name in it like, oh...I don't know..User:Arturo at BP and follow that example. But they should still not be allowed to edit, but can make drafts and suggestions on the talk page. As I understand it, TParis is suggesting we just allow the paid editors to just edit any article with a new user right....one that we have been attempting to fight against. No, I'm not for allowing paid editing on Wikipedia, no offense to those who have admitted to having already done so. I see this as a way that more experienced editors could easily take advantage of their expertise and experience to profit from and....I don't know that anyone can talk me down from that position but please try, I am all ears. Volunteer should be our goal and if someone is slipping through our policy cracks by editing an article specifically because they have been hired to do so....well, I would think we would want to fill that crack, not widen it.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Mark. Are you offering the example of Arturo at BP (talk · contribs) as a good example of a paid editor? Because it is moderately disclosed, and has no mainspace edits? I think it looks good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Why not run a test case on this? Make it optional, and get feedback from them and the community after some time. We can then broaden or scrap the idea based on its success. Contrary to Konveyor Belt's claim above, a named account would seem more trustworthy to me; the editor is choosing to be transparent and is obviously knowledgeable about our policies and his responsibility to manage his COI. I don't know if requiring them to have named accounts is the best plan when we don't have such a policy in place for other paid editors, so I'd oppose a requirement on those grounds.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would only argue that we do have such a policy or guideline in place for other paid editors. In fact we have, what I thought was a pretty clear set of policies, not perfect, but getting stronger and clearer on the subject.

Disclosure polices

Per WP:ISU "Usernames implying shared use": ...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", "LoveTrammelArt", etc. Remember that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of username. The conflict of interest guideline advises all users to exercise caution if editing articles about businesses, organizations, products, or other subjects that they are closely connected to. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's advice on editing with a conflict of interest. " Per WP:NOPAY "Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing": If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an employee, owner or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited. And of course Declaring an interest: Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. The benefits of this are that most editors will appreciate your honesty and may try to help you; you lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself, and public relations professionals may be required to abide by code of ethics, such as the GA code of ethics or PRSA code of ethics. The disadvantage of declaring your interest is that people outside Wikipedia, such as reporters, may identify you and generate negative publicity for you, your group or your company. Some COI declarations have the effect of announcing your real name (see WP:REALNAME). Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers.  ::Example of disclosure.

I think it is safe to say we have a few policies in place for this very thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Every paid editor should disclose their COI. This is a very straightforward way of doing so and is about as good as it gets. MER-C 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support TParis' line of thinking. These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them. A User:Username (paid editor) account would be the best disclosure for edits to mainspace. I would not insist on having the tagged alt account linked to the main account, as I think there would be lots of paid editors not brave enough to do this. I would have untagged, undisclosed paid-to-edit accounts declared preemptively banned, with their work subject to WP:CSD#G5. I think only this will motivate compliance from the majority of paid editors. I would allow tagged accounts the freedom to edit as per any editor, and to restrict their editing privileges if they edit poorly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hey SmokeyJoe. Is the statement: "These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them." something of a false argument? We have a set of guidelines and policy in place and have been through a good deal of discussion from the BP article in regard to paid editing and paid advocacy editing. I am not sure if I understand the logic of the proposal if not to simply allow editing of the article itself by creating a new user right or user category. I would say if we are allowing them the ability to gain financially against the very policies we have in place right now and in mass to the very question of meat puppetry, we should probably hold off any decision until we have a Village pump proposal made to the full community. If there is consensus for some special user group with the point blank disclaimer embedded permanently into the editors name...then won't they also want to have an alternative account for when they are not being paid? How far will this really take us? Will everyone be allowed two alternative accounts? If not, how does one get this new user right? What are the criteria for it? If you get it and don't have a regular account would you be able to work around the all editors being able to have double accounts...one for volunteer work and one for payment from an outside entity for the best price I can get? Can this be be implemented without the foundation and a full look into any implications on community reaction and editor retention. Would legal need to look into this first. This sounds like something that would need a straw poll, and go through a more thorough process of community vetting and consensus to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Mark. The statement is my working premise. There are some high profile admissions of undeclared alternative accounts used for paid editing. The existing policy on paid editing is weak. It is discouraged. Disclosure of COI is encouraged. They are not forbidden/required. I think "requiring" disclosure of paid editing is a reasonable small step worth trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think one step is to tighten the policy to require disclosure of paid advocacy and paid editing. I think it is a step too far to then..."Release The Kraken" upon the community by then saying just by a stamp of disclosure we should let them edit articles. Disclosure and proper COI editing is not direct and it may not be exactly what companies and editors may want in regards to paid editing policy but I can't support actually giving them a green light with the collateral of the whole thing being alternate accounts, mass groups of editors from different companies with different agendas and a political nightmare of campaigns and PR firms etc, this will attract. This isn't really just a matter of one company, but allowing everyone the right to do the same thing...and they do have the same right to do what this company does. Now we have to decide how to react to it. I agree. We should require disclosure of paid editing. I do not agree that we should allow paid editors to edit articles directly.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Mark. Agreed, we should require disclosure. When disclosed, should we allow them to edit mainspace? If it is a hard no, does this mean we require them to post edit requests on the talk page, and will these be ignored? My problem with a hard no is that they will reject the deal and stay underground. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per the name of the company. The Foundation accounts are used to speak with some sort of authority. Non-regulars at AN will see (WikiExperts) and think these are more expert than the other poor sods who just have plain user names. Peridon (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Proposal for Disclosure. What's next? A special user account for editing political articles identifying your political affiliation (B2C (Whig Party))? And another for editing religious articles (B2C (agnostic))? And yet another for one's favorite football team when editing football articles (B2C (49ers))? And, of course, everyone should be required to disclose their place of residence in order to identify nationalistic biases, etc. (B2C (Antarctic)).

  There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases. There is no reason to identify paid editors, ever.

  Focus on content, folks, not the editors. It is that simple. --B2C 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

" There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases". Then find ways to deal with other means of bias too. That's like saying we shouldn't block vandals because we can't block all disruptive editors. When we can deal with obvious forms of bias, we should. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you're underestimating the effect of all other kinds of bias, and thus overestimating the relative significance of this one kind of bias. We deal with all bias in the same way: WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. The beauty of WP is bias does not matter! WP all about putting all of our biases (and we all have them!) aside and creating NPOV notable content that is well-founded in reliable sources. This whole issue reveals how little understood and appreciated this aspect of WP is, even by very experienced editors. Sad, really. --B2C 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per declaration here [30]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal number 99999: Declare that you do paid editing

This seems by far the most sensible and lightest solution. If you engage in paid editing, place a notice on your user page or talk page that says you do. This bit could be compulsory, if that's what consensus says. If all your edits, or the majority are paid for, then you should say, but this bit isn't required. No need to disclose exact clients, or their exact requests. No messy signatures, no outright bans, just a simple notice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as long as this is not interpreted to mean that this is the only thing that needs to be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   Depending on exactly what you mean by that, then no, it doesn't suggest that this will resolve the entire problem. I'm not that naive. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

3. Support This is one of the simplest things to be done and one of the best. Declaring any COI before you start editing will hopefully defuse tensions. KonveyorBelt 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. This makes sense; we need to wake up to the reality that paid editing is going to go on (just as unpaid biased editing is going to go on), and our best defense against error is to have it out in the open. On a slightly more maudlin note, I feel bad for Luke, since this is Proposal number 99999, and Proposal number 100000 wins a free Hawaiian vacation. Well, I'm off to make a proposal... bd2412 T 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Support I feel the issue isn't being paid for editing, per se, but whether or not a person clearly profits from the edit: consider two cases. If someone fixes a typo or adds a minor detail to a biography (date of marriage or graduation from college), no one's response would change if the edit was made by the subject, his arch enemy, or an objective person who jsut happens to know the fact. On the other hand, if someone questionale material to a controversial subject, thus tilting the POV of the article in one direction, the community response will be in proportion to just how vested that person is in the subject -- viz., a newbie is far more likely to simply be educated on Wikipedia ways than someone being serious money by an advocacy group or business. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Another Proposal: Certification Course

I'm just full of ideas this morning. What if we organized a certification course? It wouldn't be a precursor to editing, nor would it prevent a paid editor who is advocating a POV from getting blocked, but what if we offered this course that companies like WikiExperts can enroll their employees in and they'd get a userbox identifying that they've been through this course and have a basic understanding of policy? I'd imagine it could be modeled after our current mentorship programs. It would go a long way toward trusting folks.--v/r - TP 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also liking this idea. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the past, Wikiexperts.us tends to hire subcontractors with prior WP editing experience, and often with considerable experience. It isn't surprising, in that new editors tend to make more mistakes which see the articles deleted. So it isn't lack of knowledge of the processes that is generally the problem. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is probably why they are successful. Their editors are pre-certified. Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the idea was more general than just Wikiexperts. I'm talking about paid editor companies all around.--v/r - TP 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so. A provocative question: would we rather have a bunch of bungling corporate marketing people edit Wikipedia, or would we prefer that they hire professional help who know how to write to our standards? Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you're serious about this idea, then the objective should be a program for *all* new users, an area where we already have severe deficiencies. NPOV is the key issue for all new users, whether they're paid advocates, paid editors, unpaid advocates, or just want to add something about their favourite TV show. The mentorship program is on its last legs due to a lack of volunteers. The idea is a good one, but it needs to work within our existing resources and target actual problems for the project, not just the perceived ones or the ones that are currently high-profile. We've had paid advocacy here for more than 10 years (my own first encounter with it was in 2007, and Wikipedia was a key part of a multi-pronged publicity campaign), so this is not a new problem. Risker (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

New users shouldn't have to slog through a bureaucracy just to edit. It must be fairly intimidating to have to go through a complex course just to fix a typo. After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we should try to keep it this way as much as possible. KonveyorBelt 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a question, then, Risker. Would anyone object if I, and maybe a few other volunteers (or someone else entirely, I won't patent the idea), were to "incorporate" a small business as a 'school' of sorts for these types. Off-wiki and what not, but with the sole purpose of teaching these paid-editor types, those whom are not already savvy, on how to edit Wikipedia. Could also teach public relations teams for companies how to do it right. Would that solve the problem?--v/r - TP 02:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The encylopeadia anyone can edit as long as they have the money or connections, eh? So you want to create a business enterprise to teach WP policies, of course for a fee. I am aware you in fact do not, but this will be the logical end result. As I said above. the project is doomed if money becomes a major criteria. No money should be involved, no one should make a penny from WP. We are all unpaid volunteers. See my proposal for a purely business enterprise related WP below. All monies recycled into local companies enviroments on a charitable basis. They would have to sign up to this explicitly. It would be hived off from the real project. I am taking it to Meta, and I think it will generate some support. Irondome (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm more or less weighing the idea in general as such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here. However, if the community were to see it in a good light, we might be able to determine a route that would give us the 'feel goods' needed to make paid editing in a limit function acceptable. Money and connections couldn't possibly affect the encyclopedia itself, as such a company wouldn't edit the encyclopedia. All it would be is to teach policies and then cut those editors lose. Then they are on their own and liable to the very same policies as everyone else. All of fee would get them would be knowledge of how Wikipedia works to give them the best chance to be successful within policy. I, personally, would charge to teach others this. I'd need to cover expenses such as a gotoMeeting subscription, a website, and business fees. But it's an idea. It's also an idea I'm not attached to, I already work two jobs and I don't need a third, so if anyone else likes the idea they are welcome to run with it. Wikipedia is part of the 'free culture' but this is a sensible business niche and reason should trump idealism.--v/r - TP 03:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here This is exactly the attitude that got Wikiexperts and WikiPR into trouble when they started ignoring policy. KonveyorBelt 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I need to take a shit, can I get your approval for that? Creating companies related to Wikipedia is not the same thing as creating companies to edit Wikipedia. So no, it's not the same attitude. Take your rhetoric to someone who wants a bite.--v/r - T:P 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If taking a shit was an inherent, natural part of Wikipedia, it'd be approved. Process is important. If your business is designed to make money off Wikipedia without approval there would be a problem. Businesses are a natural canvas for soapboxing and MEAT. KonveyorBelt 22:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the militant-ignorance that is causing the problem we have now that managed to site ban a user without evidence of misbehavior (no, meat puppetry has not been proven). People make money off Wikipedia all the time. Our content license is specifically written to allow it. I could print and bind the entire encyclopedia and sell it. So no, making money off Wikipedia is not disallowed. Making money teaching people how to use Wikipedia is actually a great idea, doesn't affect content in the slightest other than improving the general quality of new editors, and the only reason not to do it is a fear of threat to the "free culture" that permeates throughout this project.--v/r - TP 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Making money off of a nonprofit organization is not disallowed, yes, but it is completely unethical. It certainly affects content. For example, someone could be assigned to add a part to an article by you or someone else, and that part contains POV material, although the student doesn't know it. Who is at fault here? The horse or the master? KonveyorBelt 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't been around very long. People make money often reusing Wikipedia content. It's specifically licensed to allow it. The only restriction on Wikipedia content is that it has to be attributed and shared in the same fashion. But you can bundle it on a CD and sell the CD and make a profit. There is nothing unethical about it. What credentials to you have to make an ethical determination here?--v/r - TP 00:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Konveyor Belt: I've made money from Wikipedia. To be specific, directly from the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia. I had a several month long contract with them, one that paid quite decently. Although they no longer employ me, the Wikimedia Foundation still employs quite a number of other people. I see problems with unethical paid editing practices, but I think saying making any money whatsoever related to Wikipedia is unethical is going too far.. if no one made money off of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist. If nothing else, a site of our size could not realistically survive without some full time tech people, and it'd be remarkable if we could find enough solid tech people willing to work for free. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, no one has objected to John Broughton making money from sales of Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. If an author can profitably write a book about how to edit Wikipedia, why can't an instructor profitably teach a course on the same subject matter? Why can't an expert individually advise a client on the same subject matter? bd2412 T 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a relatively simple corporate editing training module already on this site? I thought I saw something like that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don’t know if they have a formal programme, but there’s WP:CO-OP.—Odysseus1479 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A separate business WP

• A separate WP should be created.
• It would adhere to WP procedures and agreements, and users would sign up to that.
• All monies would be donated to companies local enviroment, including charities. There will be no profit made. This should be a red line.
• Companies should agree to any monies being paid to their local communities to foster good works. This would be cast - iron AGF, and would indicate the ethical solidity of interested companies. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bring this to Meta. Ross Hill (talk) 23:09, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC) 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I need to knock this up into a more detailed proposal though. What metawiki portal would be most appropriate Ross? Irondome (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think somewhere, someone actually suggested something like this on Jimbo's talk page and frankly this sounds like the best route. Maybe not as proposed above but using the Wikivoyage model. Perhaps something like "Wikispotlight" (sounds better than Wikibusiness or Wikiforhire) and leave the entire subject of paid editing as ambiguous as it is at Wikivoyage. As I recall there is no such policy of paid or promotional editing on that site or any particular rule about a business writing their own information if it is relevant for the page and section.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think the concept of the ultimate desination of any monies paid through using this mooted new sub-Wiki would be revolutionary. Companies would agree that any monies paid would go to charitable or local good cause foundations. It would attract some potentially huge revenue, (I think BP would love it :)) and would indicate that participating companies have a strong ethical semse, or perhaps merely a sense of positive PR. Any monies accrued using WP would be small change, and they would gain great kudos. The foundation may need to take it on, but potential revenues for positive charitable or educational programmes could be considerable. Just initial thoughts here. I agree this model is the way to go. Irondome (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So we'd have 2 Wikipedias - shall we call them PRpedia and NOPRpedia? With the PR folks banned from NOPRpedia, but free to pitch as much as they want at PRpedia? Lots of questions on the details here, but there is one very big problem. If we disclosed to the readers that PRpedia editors were allowed to put in "hidden" PR pitches into their encyclopedia, then they'd have very few readers. They'd also tend to have pretty poor articles outside of business areas - except that they could just copy NOPRpedia articles. They'd also have very biased articles on business, so when readers figured out what's up, they'll all go back to reading NOPRpedia. PR folks are not idiots, so they'd just go back to undisclosed editing at NOPRpedia, and PRpedeia would die, no readers, no editors. If anybody disagrees, of course, they can just form their own PRpedia and see how successful it is. The WMF will supply the software for free, and probably even help them download all the articles to start. Actually there are mirror sites that do this already, but I'd guess all the successful ones have one thing in common - no hidden PR in the articles.

A more direct approach might be for the WMF to just provide space for declared PR companies or business to just write whatever they want about their clients or themselves in the form of CC-BY-SA licensed articles. They wouldn't be good secondary sources, but we could use them as primary sources as needed, as long as the companies provide adequate info that the writer is who he/she claims to be - i.e. the public can hold them responsible for what they write. Again, the companies can do this themselves if they want on their own websites, but heck - why not as long as they agree not to put their advertising into our articles? As above, they could pay the costs of keeping the site open. A couple of problems here though. 1st the PR folks won't do it - they wouldn't fool anybody if their "info" was in this form; and 2nd the WMF has always said that it wouldn't take advertising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Great feedback. Appreciated. I dont agree with large chunks, but we have a coherent dialogue on this path started. Irondome (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Irondome (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Smallbones. It's not realistic. Feel free try it anytime. These companies want to be listed and covered by Wikipedia-proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've thought along these lines myself - and rejected the idea. There already are Facebook, MySpace, AboutUs and so on where they can post their PR speak twaddle for free. Why provide them with another space for the same? These PR people already seem to think people love their stuff - I saw a van belonging to a well-known mattress manufacturer the other day, and on the back it said "Follow us on Twitter @xxxx!". Mattresses? People who are that desirous of finding the latest news on mattresses? Cameras and computers I could understand, but mattresses? PR gone barmy. Keep Wikipedia free from this nonsense. And don't lend the name to a PR pushing venture. It's bad enough with xxxx-Leaks and Conservixxxx around. Peridon (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently several mattress companies use Twitter. Tweets include "NOTHING ELSE MATTRESS..." and "Students! Be careful of buying a used mattress from Craigslist." Comedy gold. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a spinoff wiki is that it will never achieve the same level of Google importance that enWP has. I remember during the MMA wars when a great faction of the supporter camp up and decided to set up a MMA wiki after irreconcilable conflicts with the generally accepted Policies/Guidelines/MoS/Best practices. Whenever you search for a MMA topic Wikipedia is typically one of the top 5 sites simply because we do uphold a specific set of editorial practices. I don't think we want to give any opportunity for free-advertising to have any linkage to Wikipedia's good name Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...have you edited Wikivoyage Hasteur? I have actually been collecting some information from business' on my travels and taking pictures of some of the more interesting California Hotels/Bed & Breakfast to add to articles eventually, but I have added images and other contributions to a number of articles. It's great fun I think. Take a look at the article for Hollywood. Note that there is contact information, addresses, and very "pamphlet" style writing with what some might call "promotional tone". And that article could use some expanding as a travel page. Why couldn't we have something similar that isn't specific to travel. Maybe "Wikimarketing" if we want to be blatant, but I think it needs to be purpose driven and have a need to feel in the right manner and the best idea I come up with is "Wikispotlight" or something similar sounding that is simply a place that allows a magazine style of formatting. It would be filling the nich of "this need" for paid and unpaid advocacy of subjects in a little more graphic looking and slicker format, as paid code writers would be able create far more complex templates and creative ways to us mark up coding. I think if we ever tried to fill a "need of paid editing", this would be the way to do it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nope - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot down this proposal entirely. I've had the same thought as this proposal many times. It would solve the problem of our readers being deceived, and the endless arguments that paid editors will give when they are edited. But the likely failure of this experiment to draw in advertisers only highlights the fact that the advertisers don't want to just advertise here, they want to deceive our readers, and steal our credibility. It just wouldn't work as far as attracting the advertisers to the new site.

But it could likely work in another sense. Going to court against the advertisers would likely be quite complicated under the current set-up. The courts would likely address questions like: What rule did they break? Why is this a cause of action in court? Having this alternative advertising site, with a small fee required, would make it all very simple: theft of services. An advertiser who had the opportunity to pay for an ad, but instead just inserted it in an article would not have any case in court. They'd be in and out in 5 minutes. Guilty as charged. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So I take it consensus indicates its an idea so bad, it will stampede an octopus. Irondome (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put that much weight on it. I think TParis even mentions somewhere that something like this wouldn't even need a decision here. I think it might be something being proposed to Meta.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It already exists. It's called Wikia. It's full of ads and promotion. Most of the content is fancruft. That's what a "business-friendly wiki" looks like.John Nagle (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Exact wording people are supporting?

I've proposed conditions that I'd be comfortable with for unbanning this user. But I've yet to see a clear idea of what conditions, if any, we'd require before we unbanned him and his company. I'd like to see a specific proposal from the user directly (I believe he can edit his talk page and if not perhaps through WP:ORTS. In particular I'd like it made clear if he is agreeing to have all folks editing for his company identified (and if it's just future ones or would include the past) and how exactly he'll have paid editors proceed. I'm pretty happy with the changes to his website, but I'd like to get some kind of sense that those will stay around. Basically I'd like to hear what he's committing to (if anything). I feel it's really unclear what people are supporting (or not supporting) above. Hobit (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What they support is in fact unconditional removal of ban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are at least 11 !votes under the unban proposal for conditional support, the condition being that all this company's COI accounts here are openly declared. That's just a first count. There are probably more if you read the various statements carefully. So I think Hobit's question is very apt. Voceditenore (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. And since they are not going to declare their current, but only future accounts (if I understand correctly from their statement below), these 11 vote probably should count as "oppose"... My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked on his talk page and the following is the reply to the question above (Mojoworker (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)):

As the founder and CEO of WikiExperts I am happy to state clearly that, if WikiExperts is again able to edit Wikipedia, we agree to follow all COI Guidelines to the letter for every edit we make moving forward. That includes disclosure of any account used to make an edit from that point forward, as per the condition set within the original ban regarding the condition for unbanning. Disclosure will take place in full adherence to the COI Guidelines. Prior to the ban it was our opinion that it was unclear whether or not COI disclosure was mandatory, and if it had been made known to us that it was mandatory and not an issue for debate, we would never have made previous edits contrary to the guidelines. Now that we know disclosure is mandatory, we have altered our practices to adhere to the new set of rules. I have reviewed the above proposals for how new forms of COI declarations could occur, and state here that WikiExperts is fully willing to work directly with the Community to develop a system of declarations that makes the Community comfortable and provides an additional level of neutral scrutiny for all our contributions. We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia. Because of previously signed NDAs, we have no ability to reveal the past clients, however, we pledge to no longer sign agreements that would disallow us from full COI disclosure, so that all future work can be verified as within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Ethics page on our website already states as such, and past references to confidentiality of the service have been removed. We would very much like to prove that we are not harmful to Wikipedia, and to show that we add neither promotional nor non-notable material to the website when allowed to edit. AKonanykhin (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

This is probably unrealistic, but I would love a requirement that editors working for a paid editing company be required to put in, say, 500 productive article-space edits per month on topics unrelated to any of the company's paying customers. Think of the typos to be fixed! The uncited assertions to be sourced! The disambiguation links to be fixed! bd2412 T 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks all, I appreciate everyone working to make this clear. Personally, I don't think this goes far enough. I'd certainly want a list of all articles/subjects they were hired to edit before I'd think it reasonable to have them come back. It's pretty standard to ask people to clean up their own messes or help others clean them up before getting restrictions lifted. If they signed non-disclosure agreements, that isn't our problem IMO. But I am pleased we have some idea how things would improve. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The defense that WikiExperts has "no ability to reveal the past clients" because of "previously signed NDAs" is legally specious. WikiExperts, its clients, and its employees/contractors are fully able to renegotiate and/or rescind any NDAs as necessary, and they all have the incentive to do so. So I call Mr. Konanykhin's bluff on that point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help figuring out what to do about in-Wikipedia copyvio

If you look at History of Lower Saxony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it seems to have been moved/merged to another article here[[31] and renamed Theodor Gottfried Liesching. Then recently he was given his own article[32] and a large amount of material was restored to this page and it was renamed again.[33]. Now this is clearly copyvio, presumably from our own articles, but there's no way of knowing where it comes from. The editor, Izraías (talk · contribs) didn't discuss this anywhere and also made other page moves I don't quite get, and I'd like help sorting it out. I think History of Lower Saxony needs reverting to remove the copyvio, and then if anything is replaced (hopefully with a discussion) it needs to be clearly attributed so it isn't copyvio. I'll notify the editor. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So, the original page was Württemberg; then it was moved to Theodor Gottfried Liesching which in its turn was moved to History of Lower Saxony. Thus, Theodor Gottfried Liesching was effectively "deleted" and Talk:Württemberg ended up in Talk:History of Lower Saxony. There is indeed copyvio from our own articles (particularly, Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg, House of Welf). (Note that -Ilhador-, Jack Bufalo Head, and Izraías are apparently the same editor—already blocked many times before for copyright violations and sockpuppeting; I'm about to open an SPI and then maybe organize a ban.) I created a new article for T.G. Liesching in order to avoid copyvio but I would like to request to restore the old one [34]. If I'm not mistaken no article about the History of Lower Saxony existed before -Ilhador-'s meddling; so if it's a copyvio from our own articles it should be turned into a redirect to Lower Saxony. The difficult task, though, is to avoid eliminating any page histories. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

G11 deletion is normally appropriate in egregious cases of internal copyvio, but this is complex enough that we really shouldn't start off with any G11s. Let's figure out the page history and then make any necessary deletions, which I suspect will require more extensive use of G6 for history merging than G11. I'll be happy to try to help when I have time later. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I've spent a bit of time looking over the articles, and I'm quite confused. There's no way I'm going to do anything without input from others, lest I accidentally make things worse. Let me propose the following actions (NB — "history" is page history; "History" is the article about Lower Saxony):

• Delete History of Lower Saxony, Theodor Gottfried Liesching, and Württemberg under G6
• Restore the Liesching edits from History, move them to Liesching, and restore the deleted Liesching edits
• Restore the Württemberg edits from History, move them to Württemberg, and restore the deleted Württemberg edits
• Restore History
• This would resolve the history splitting for Liesching and Württemberg, if I'm understanding rightly. After that, we need to deal with the stuff that's been merged into History.
• Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Duchy
• I don't see anything in History that derives from Welf. Unless I'm missing something, we can ignore Welf.
• Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Electorate

At this point, we're left with a rump: the first 1½ sentences of subsection 6.1 and perhaps subsection 6.2. It was added by a disruptive sock, and it might be copied from somewhere else. Let's delete it with G5 and a dash of IAR. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is further complication since Württemberg and Baden (effectively "deleted" by -Ilhador- [35]) were eventually rewritten from scratch by User:Fadesga. Also note that History of Lower Saxony could also redirect to History of Saxony. Give me one more day to check if the suggested solution can work. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To sum it up the problematic moves are the following: [36], [37], [38], [39]. Regarding History of Lower Saxony and Theodor Gottfried Liesching I agree with Nyttend. But we must retain the articles User:Fadesga created. 'Baden' and 'Württemberg' are historically ambiguous names; they may refer either to a series of historical polities or to their respective historical regions. Especially in the case of 'Württemberg' none of the historical polities could be described as a primary topic in either English or German usage. That is why the German Wikipedia has a dab page for 'Baden' and a geography-related article about Württemberg and that is why the English one should have them, too (see Baden and Württemberg). So I propose that there should exist two different articles: Kingdom of Württemberg and Württemberg as they stand now. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And now that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador- is settled with 3 socks blocked (thanks Omnipaedista for doing the legwork on this) I'm available for any necessary article deletions. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid PR by Single purpose promotional accounts

Because of the current high profile discussions about Wikipedia and paid editing, I am becoming increasingly sensitive as I patrol new pages to fully formed articles with a substantially promotional tone, yet concealed as well referenced articles, but created as the only contribution of a new editor, one who only edits in this area, or even this article. I'm sure you don't need examples, but they are easy to find.

Because of the fully formed nature of the articles, created with a skill that takes almost every ordinary editor a while to learn, I smell sockpuppetry. Because they are SPAs I see no easy way for the ordinary editor to reach a conclusion. I suspect that an experienced sock hunter and the checkuser tool is required to sniff them out. However, I see no way of reporting what I might term a suspicious editor.

I hope to catalyse a discussion, here or elsewhere, that will create a place for we ordinary editors to place suspicious editors for investigation. Some will be innocent. Good. Others will lead to a PR organisation, perhaps the same PR organisation. The outcome of WIkipedia's discussions about paid editing will be relevant to this class of editor.

Such an investigation platform ought to make it easier for our hard working SPI clerks and others to form an educated view about the extent of the problem. Fiddle Faddle 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to identify traits of such editors, but I wonder per WP:Beans if we ought to be doing so in the open. I'm a big fan of conducting as much business as possible in the open, but some things appear to be legitimate exceptions. (It occurs to me that WP:Beans isn't quite the right metaphor I need a beans inverse or !Beans or something like that.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation statement can help how you approach this, particularly the parts about "required disclosure" and the part about violations of terms of use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful, Sue Gardner has less than a newbie's understanding of the English Wikipedia. She knows how to run a non-profit, not how to edit Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disrespecting Sue Gardner is irrelevant and gratuitous, it is the Foundation she is speaking for and the Pedia runs because of them; they have tons of experience here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? That must be why they don't hire community liasons.--v/r - TP 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a tool that can identify near-orphan articles predominantly edited by an SPA account? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Indeed, creating multiple throw-away accounts is a common sock-puppeteer and PR editing tactics. A trow-away account is not just an SPA, but an SPA active for a short period of time to make a very limited set of edits (a lot of such accounts are actually legit). The most efficient approach would be an automatic global check of all throw-away accounts to see which of them originated from the same IP address - under a supervision by Checkuser. Some of detected accounts would have to be blocked as sockpuppet accounts; contributions by others would have to be posted somewhere and checked. Unfortunately, such method contradicts the currently accepted philosophy of user-checking (as a privacy violation; I personally do not think so). With advent of numerous PR people around here, this will be necessary, I believe.My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See [40] and [41]. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks to everyone and especially Dennis Brown who helped to fix this problem. I am afraid we will see more of this in the future.My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And that, with precision, is the reason we need to discuss what is required, followed by how to implement it. There are private pages that things get handled on. Some of the filters, for example, are on pages that I can;t read because I don;t have the permissions. So things can be done in a non beansy manner if we wish. But we need to wish it. Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal by Dolovis

Following the advice given to me here, I am requesting that the topic ban imposed upon me on January 5, 2012 be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and a review of my edit history will demonstrate that a topic ban is not required. This topic ban is preventing me from legitimately contesting controversial moves per WP:BRD such as this one, or from even taking part in move discussions such as this one. I thank you for your consideration. Dolovis (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff for the topic ban is here, if I understand rightly. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The requirement of any request to reduce a topic ban is to, in the request, prove:

1. The editor has been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project, without similar problems
2. The editor shows how they will behave in a future, assuring the community the the problems that led to the ban will not recur

This request meets neither of these ES&L 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could explain to us what led to your topic ban, and what steps you will take to avoid the behaviours that resulted in it? Resolute 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pending answers to ES&L's questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response to Resolute's questions:

  I was topic banned as a result of this ANI. At that time I thought was editing in accordance with instructions found at WP:REDCAT. I was adding Template:R from diacritics to redirects (a common practice as can be seen with redirect edits at Igor Bacek, Milan Balis, David Arvay, Tomas Bokros, Miroslav Bobocky, Emil Bucic, Tomas Bukovinsky, Tomas Bucic, David Buc, David Skokan, ect.) however, because adding a second edit to a redirect prevented non-admin edits from moving articles without going through WP:RM, it was characterized as “gaming the system” and I was blocked and also topic banned from editing diacritics.

• Response to ES&L questions:

I was blocked from editing for six months in April 2012, but I did not return to editing until a full year later in April 2013. In the past six months that I have returned to being an active contributor to Wikipedia, I have stayed away from the issue of diacritics, and have demonstrated that I have been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project (mostly within the ice hockey project) without similar problems.

In the future I will not directly move any articles which contain diacritics in their title, but will only follow the written policy and procedures as outlined at WP:RM/CM. Dolovis (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I will preface this with the statement that Dolovis and I severely disagree with each other on several points (and diacritics is one of them), and are on less than friendly terms... I do think your answer above is a tad simplistic, as you were banned from moving pages, then once that was lifted, banned from diacritics for resuming similar actions. However, I presume that you will not be gaming the system in this same fashion in the future, so I see little threat there. Likewise, I will vouch that your editing under the Dolovis account has not repeated such behaviours since you returned. The six-month block, however, was for sockpuppetry and involved using sock accounts to continue your anti-diacritics push. You are not banned from using alternate accounts, but I do trust that you are not actively using any undeclared socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future? Resolute 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Resolute: Given the amount of interaction we have on Wikipedia, and the large number of edits we have made on common subjects, you probably are better aware of my editing style than anyone else on this project, and I appreciate you vouching for my editing behaviour. If you are looking for a declaration, I will give one: I am not using any socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future. Do I have your support to lift the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully, I expect that lifting this ban will result in our opposing each other in various diacritic-related RMs. As much as I personally would rather not deal with that, I can't use our difference of opinion to keep you on the outside. So yes, in this case I am willing to support your request for another chance. Resolute 17:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced Topic bans do not come out of a single incident. They only come to AN/ANI when everything else has been tried first. When multiple members of the community tried to guide Dolovis, they refused - continuing down their path of "editing in accordance with instructions" - even though advised time and time again that they needed to stop. The ANI was a culmination of many, many attempts to get Dolovis to stop, including (if I recall) more than one trip to an admin noticeboard. This outright refusal to follow guidance was a key to the topic ban, and I do not see those behaviour addressed above, in fact, it's suggested that the topic ban was due to a one-of incident, which is patently false ES&L 08:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What would it take to convince you? The topic ban was for an indefinite period, not permanent. Please advise me what more I need to demonstrate for you to support lifting the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Action History

hi. Saran, Iran:history→Saran, East Azerbaijan .--E THP (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic with the page history. Could you explain what's needed? Are you saying that the pages need to be merged? Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple Sarans in Iran, so a disambig page is required. What's the issue? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I created this article(8 April 2011), But later renamed not transferred History.E THP (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a completely different page; it wasn't a cut/paste move or anything else that needs repair. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

History must be moved.I created first article.E THP (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's only necessary to preserve attribution histories; Carlos didn't take anything you wrote when he created the second page, so no histmerge is necessary. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IP editor making controversial copy/paste moves

108.235.225.44 (talk · contribs) has been making copy/paste moves, which is not only wrong but these moves are also pretty controversial and should've been discussed first. Somebody with the appropriate powers should fix whatever's happened here and make sure there's a good consensus. 149.254.58.13 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored redirect at AdBlock and another editor has reverted at AdBlock (Chrome). But IP 108.235 is correct in saying that AdBlock is not specific to chrome. So AdBlock(chrome) should be a redirect to AdBlock, not the other way around. I request an admin to do the move properly ( due to a history at AdBlock, move is not possible by non-admin).--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Move's done, with a history swap to preserve the redirect's non-trivial page history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The history currently under AdBlock (Chrome) may be non-trivial, but it's not properly attributed or particularly useful. 108.235.225.44 made an exact copy (cross-page diff), and there were no substantial edits made. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

ANRFC thread open for over one month

Wikipedia:ANRFC#Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September#Commas in metro areas has been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You might consider posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure; there's quite a queue for admin action right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about ANRFC, I believe. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks Pink. I guess I should have had coffee before replying; my bad. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Two userpages with same picture and text

Resolved

User:Valeriypavlov and User:Valeriy Pavlov, please check. Thanks--Musamies (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

De728631 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has deleted both under WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Same userpages created again and also user talk page added same spam.--Musamies (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've re-deleted both of them and blocked both users as spam/advertising-only accounts. Graham87 05:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

IP from Suburban Express complains about User:CorporateM's edits to their company's article

• Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Suburban Express has initiated about 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors.[4]"

Here is the citation:

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

The article does not say Suburban Express filed 10 lawsuits against competitors.

It says this: In the past, Sub urban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX.

The three named companies are competitors, but it does not logically follow that all 10 lawsuits were against competitors. Champaign County Circuit Clerk's website reveals that suits have been filed against non-customers who are not competitors, ie Pitney Bowes.

This is the game that CorporateM is playing: He is relying on the laziness of readers. He expects that he can say something that seems like it is true, but which is not actually true, and that nobody is going to actually check. He constantly lies in his edits, which are biased and not consistent with NPOV.

Most of CorporateM's edits to Suburban Express article contain significant errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that CorporateM's edits are not consistent with NPOV, that CorporateM is making numerous negative edits without discussing edits beforehand -- even as he criticizes other user(s) and reverts their edits for not discussing before editing. CorporateM has admitted elsewhere to being a paid editor, and he seems to have an undisclosed COI wrt Suburban Express.

An adult in charge needs to get this user under control. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Relevant links: Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); CorporateM (talk · contribs) ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• CorporateM is a paid editor who usually identifies him/herself as such on the talk pages of articles they edit. We don't accept county clerk records as reliable sources because they are raw "primary" sources. If there is something noteworthy about the cases you refer to, find mentions of them in reliable "secondary" sources and discuss it on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Before making accusations that CorporateM is a paid editor, you should come up with a better justification than baseless speculation. Also, you should not be complaining about "paid" editors when you admit to being a paid representative of Suburban Express.

On the subject of the 10 civil suits you filed, you seem to be conviniently ignoring the fact that you filed 3 lawsuits against LEX and that you filed a lawsuit against Peoria Charter. --Gulugawa (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express is here to remedy false statements and false citations which appear in the Suburban Express article. Suburban Express is, in fact, advocating for Suburban Express, within the rules and frameworks established by Wikipedia. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

County clerk records are not necessary to refute CorporateM's false entry. The article cited simply does not state what CorporateM claims it states. You may find it difficult to accept that a wikipedia editor is doing sloppy work and/or lying, but that is absolutely the case here. Before you fire back defending CorporateM, look at the article and look at the cited source. Until you do that, you are just speculating. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• And what is your connection, if any, to these articles, 99.147.28.113? Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the extreme accusations and insults against a very cautious and diligent editor over what at worst (and IF true) is an editing error makes this a good candidate for a boomerang. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

[11:46:06] erinacity:/tmp
alisonc $ whois 99.147.28.113

[snip]
NetRange:       99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119
CIDR:           99.147.28.112/29
OriginAS:       
NetName:        SBC-99-147-28-112-29-1104201844
NetHandle:      NET-99-147-28-112-1
Parent:         NET-99-128-0-0-1
NetType:        Reassigned
RegDate:        2011-04-20
Updated:        2011-04-20
Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-99-147-28-112-1

CustName:       ILLINI SHUTTLE-110420131800
Address:        Private Address
City:           Plano
StateProv:      TX
PostalCode:     75075
Country:        US
RegDate:        2011-04-20
Updated:        2011-04-20
Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C02741096
[snip]

According to WHOIS record [48], Illini Shuttle (aka Suburban Express) own this ip address range. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

!!???? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Article has been subject to a long history of socks/meats/paid editors consistent with this company's behavior on Reddit, where they allegedly used sockpuppets to attack users that criticized the organization for alleged corrupt business practices. Frustrated students involved in litigation with the organization have also made COI edits, but their conduct is less egregious.

POV pushers that do not get their way will almost always resort to personal attacks and a COI disclosure is an easy hand-hold for them to latch onto. It serves as good "bait" into making POV pushers self-out themselves by focusing on it. Who would possibly pay me? The students? I originally became involved in the article more or less to protect Suburban Express from legal antagonists.

An article protection, sock-puppet investigation, a few IP blocks and/or other administrative actions are long overdue, but I am too lazy to go through our bureaucratic processes. I have previously notified admins User:OrangeMike, User:Dennis Brown and User:DGG on the issues on this page.

As for the "correction" suggested above regarding the number of lawsuits, they may be correct or not. It would be worthwhile for someone to check. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No attempt is being made to hide the source of the IP edits. The ip address used to post this message is registered to Suburban Express. We are here expressing our concerns regarding wild inaccuracies and misattributions by COI/Paid editor CorporateM. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A large percentage of citations in this article are inaccurate. There are multiple examples of CorporateM misrepresentations in the talk section. Here is another one:

"Another False Edit by CorporateM: The student did not receive a letter demanding $570 for liquidated damages. The contract specified $500 liquidated damages for, among other things, disruptive behavior. The diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573947756&oldid=573926939 The alleged source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07194422871/bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit-meets-ken-white-runs-away.shtml" 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The two examples provided are not isolated examples, they are two data points in a pattern of bad edits.

We at Suburban Express object to the Suburban Express wikipedia article containing false information and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• If CorporateM is habitually misrepresenting sources in such a way as to slant the article (something we call tendentious editing), please make a concise, coherent and complete case here. You are across the issue here, so you're the best qualified to do this. Provide a diff (enclosed in square brackets [], then quote what the source actually says, and quote what CorporateM represented it as saying.

You might want to familiarise yourself thoroughly with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, too. At a glance some of the sources being used to pillory you seem a bit dodgy (but I'm no sourcing expert - the people at WP:RSN are.) And Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: again just glancing (it's bedtime here) but that article seems heavily negatively weighted, verging on an attack piece. I'll have a more careful look in the morning. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, some of the sources conflict on the exact numbers. Many of the sources are tech rags, like TechCrunch and Ars Technica, which are reliable, but should be used with caution, because they don't necessarily share our editorial mission. This small college bus company is arguably best-known for suing their own customers and allegations of astroturfing Reddit to insult students, but a certain amount of balancing media sensationalism is right and proper and has been reasonably accounted for already - though regular editors may reasonably disagree on the precise balancing. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuses and double-talk. CorporateM has been made aware of numerous false attributions and the response here is manipulative and disingenuous. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is already a bevy of evidence in the article's talk page. This evening or tomorrow evening, a concise and current list will be posted here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

speaking of lazy, the following text is directly out of the link you posted "Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994, when the first lawsuit was filed in Champaign County. Eighty-four of these lawsuits were filed prior to 2013." which seems to back the 200 lawsuits just fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Compare the statement in the wiki article to the source. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And from your second link "He received an e-mail from the company that said he was being fined $500 for "liquidated damages" and was permanently banned." also sufficiently sourcing the statement in your diff. Stop trolling. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything in there to support the "10 civil suits against competitors" though. 6, yes (see sidebar), but nothing directly to support 10. Gah, hate supporting obvious corporate trolls, especially one so foul. Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire "Champaign County Circuit Court records also show that Suburban Express brought a civil lawsuit against the Peoria Charter Coach Company in 2009. In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX." The source is ambiguous on this point, so we may need to tweak the article text, but this certainly doesn't rise to an AN issue as our text is a reasonable interpretation of this source text. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about both this isn't something for AN and that the text can be tweaked. In fact, when I checked the article text after posting, it had been revised to say that civil suits had been filed against 4 competitors. I think it could have been revised as 10 civil suits, including cases against 4 competitors so that both the number of cases and the number of competitors are included. Ravensfire (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express -- if you go around suing lots of people, you will get a certain reputation, and that reputation will appear in your Wikipedia article. If you don't like this reputation, you might need to behave differently. Wikipedia does not whitewash its articles to please business interests. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Expres sues cheaters. That is a well-established fact, and not something we dispute. The issue here is that the article is riddled with inaccuracies and false citations. We do not take issue with the article containing factual information from credible sources. We do take issue with false statements which cite sources which do not support the statements. Simple as that. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You need think about this from a public relations point of view. It might be within your legal rights to sue these people, but lawsuits can generate dsnews coverage, much of it adverse. It's like negative advertising. Maybe you need to balance the pros and cons. Unfortunately, your service doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing. You've made the company become notable as a lawsuit mill. Maybe you need to find a better way to deal with cheaters. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express does not profit-maximize in matters of theft and fraud. Suburban Express pursues cheaters even though it is not the profit-maximizing solution. Suburban Express will continue to vigorously pursue cheaters, much like many retailers vigorously pursue (and prosecute) shoplifters. Suburban Express will not be blackmailed or shamed, by cheaters or the bloggers who support their cause (what cause?), into not pursuing cheaters. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WRT your statement that "doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing". That is false. Suburban Express exists because it exploited a regulatory loophole and brought inexpensive, reliable service to a market that was poorly served by a company with a monopoly granted by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Suburban Express increased service and decreased cost for hundreds of thousands of students. Conventional media has covered Suburban Express well in its 30 year history. Online detractors of Suburban Express seem to delight in the fact that only recent (mostly negative) articles can be obtained online, while older conventional-media articles cannot -- and they have in the past bristled at the suggestion that they read conventional media sources posted as pdf's on the website of the owner of Suburban Express -- as if somehow posting a newspaper article on the website of the owner somehow makes it not a valid conventional-media source. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

boomerang

Not an admin, but reading through the article talk, I think its time for the boomerang boomstick. WP:DE and WP:HARRASS all over the place, attempting to throw the kitchen sink at CorporateM, and wear down the other editors via attrition. proposal : Permanently semiprotect the article, and topic ban/block the troll and obvious socks who are obvious. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How do exactly you propose that Suburban Express address a situation where a user is posting false statements, false citations, and false edit "reasons" other than by calling out the infractions? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if the (only specific) complaints by the IP's were 100% true and accurate, they would merely represent a couple of errors that need correcting. And CorporateM has indicated openness to such. I don't even know what this is doing at the noticeboard, except for considering a possible boomerang. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, a large percentage of statements inserted by CorporateM are false or inaccurate and/or have citations that do not support the statements that cite them. Not one or two minor errors, a systematic pattern of either sloppy editing or errors. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given 99.147.28.113's extremely precocious editing history (just look at his/her very first edit) I think the sock accusations are quite reasonable. 99.147.28.113, in the name of full disclosure, could you please tell us which other accounts you've been using? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above three editors. It appears that the banned sockmaster User:Thenightchicagodied might be related to this as well as User:Eyeteststar, and User:Joshuabcohen I'd like to ask the IP if he is related to these editors and if there is anything else he'd like to say about any other possibly related editors, or if he wishes to make a full COI statement. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you perceive to have happened in the past has no bearing on the the matter being discussed here - false statements and false atributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For context, the article has been semi-protected for quite some time, but that hasn't prevented paid editors with established accounts from slanting the article, which leads in turn to frustrated students with the opposite COI who are (mostly) self-prohibiting themselves from article-space. I posted a request for stronger article-protection, but they said blocking the disruptive editors would be more appropriate. What would be even better if anyone has the initiative is a full investigation into the network of paid socks and other related accounts. Many articles have been effected by the same network of non-disclosed COI accounts and it looks like user:Samllbones may have just provided some additional leads. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. One of the Wikipedia administrators should investigate the accounts in more detail. Gulugawa (Talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express acknowledges the participation of user Gulugawa in this discussion and cautions readers that Gulugawa has an admitted conflict of interest arising from his tireless activities online as a Suburban Express detractor. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, the ip I am posting from is a Suburban Express IP address and I do in fact represent Suburban Express. That has no bearing on the issue being discussed here: False statements and false citations in the article. They are false whether I point them out or someone else points them out. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express has the right to comment about their situation. We should not stifle the subject. On the other hand, the subject needs to participate in a non-disruptive way. You can state your case, but don't abuse your editing privileges. If you think the article is biased, please be calm, say why, and suggest other sources of info that could be used to help create a better, more balanced article. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course they have the right to comment. At the same time, 99.147.28.113 is an WP:SPA whose sole purpose is to oppose CorporateM. On top of that there are indicia of sockpuppetry. This user should not be allowed to bifurcate his/her anti-CorporateM accusations (no matter how valid they may be) from his/her other contributions to the project. This user should be putting their credibility on the line just like anyone else who comes to the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

False. The sole purpose of Suburban Express is not to "oppose CorporateM". Suburban Express would argue that the opposite is true, eg that CorporateM has made it his misson to oppose and defame Suburban Express, regardless of the facts. The goal of Suburban Express here is to ensure that the contents of the wikipedia article about Suburban Express is consistent with wikipedia rules, customs, and standards. To the extent that any user is posting false information and/or false citations, Suburban Express will pursue such matters vigorously and within the wikepedia ecosystem, which is exactly what is being done here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Spin it however you want; your edit history speaks for itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. That does not seem to advance the discussion about false statements and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, but how could Suburban Express possibly be more open and transparent than posting from an IP address that is registered with ARIN as being controlled by Suburban Express? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That is encouraging. It sounds like you are prepared to accept WP's policies and practices, if that is what you mean by the term "ecosystem". Think of the boards as the Human immune system. Committed users, especially admin staff, have the duty of monitoring the editing of all editors, old, new, registered, I.Ps, illustrious editing histories, or non at all. It is nothing personal. Irondome (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

99.147.28.113, you could plaster a big COI notice on the user and user talk pages of every account associated with Suburban Express, including your own, and you could add a {{connected contributor}} tag to the top of Talk:Suburban Express and associated talk pages.

That seems to be a sarcastic statement which does not advance the discussion of false statements and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcastic at all. It was good advice, and I am now giving you the same advice. You ask how you could possibly be more open and transparent? You could start by not referring to Suburban Express in the third person, which is misleading, and you could demonstrate your alleged efforts to be open and transparent by putting a COI notice on the user page of every account associated with Suburban Express and adding a {{connected contributor}} tag to the top of the user talk page of every account associated with Suburban Express. Not that I believe that you actually want to be open and transparent, but if you do, that is a good way to accomplish that goal. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That statement seems to contain many assumptions.99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you denying those assumptions...that the sockpuppets mentioned elsewhere in this thread aren't you? The last time someone asked you, you simply stated such information was not relevant (which I believe it is). 67.175.155.121 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bounty

FYI - Suburban Express has posted a generous offer on the bounty board (correct terminology?) for citation/accuracy cleanup. Perhaps one of the editors reading this would like to earn a donation for wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the link? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How about if that editor then requested the fee be given to a charity or good cause of their choice, which you would then pay? Or you donate the amount to local charity helping the disadvantaged in your locale? As some may be aware, that is the only kind of paid editing on WP I "personally" consider acceptable. However I note the terms of the bounty board do not admit of that. Perhaps it needs changing or broadening somewhat. You are aware that there is an information technology arms race raging, and its getting more intense out there. If the company is generating negative vibes through use of a liberalised electronic media by some disgruntled clients, and it is reflected in a RS, it is our duty to note it. Obviously it must be balanced by strict NPOV criteria by ALL of us. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

99.147.... If there are errors which you would like to work towards getting corrected, your best route would be to calmly discuss the specifics of them, propose fixes and provide sources consistent with wp:RS to support your statement. And continuously hurling insults, accusations, attacks, assuming bad faith etc. is about the worst possible way, certain to result in a train wreck. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Irondome: The bounty offer has been modified as follows: Expiration date changed, bounty may be assigned to any legitimate charity. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem there is that WP rules do not recognise that as another reciepient option at this point. It would require a community-wide discussion to change the bounty board criteria. However, there is a debate currently ongoing in the community in terms of payment on WP. I think radically reworking the bounty system, expanding it is the way forward. Having a company showing interst in that method may give any mooted proposals for change additional credibility. Irondome (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the bounty, Suburban Express is unfamiliar with all the rules surrounding bounties. Suburban Express has complied with your request for a change to the terms. The changes can be deleted. Guidance is needed here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This is new territory to me too. I was not aware of the bounty board, and I have been here a while. It may be wise to provisionally delete, pending any discussions for change. Any other admin editor feedback very welcomed here. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How can the bounty be modified within wikipedia rules so that it is of interest to you? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is of no personal interest to me, however such an expansion of payment options may improve corporate/WP relationships in the round. It appears to be a neglected and almost unknown but rather imaginative concept, which has been left to neglect, apart from a few dedicated bounty hunters who still participate. Irondome (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the "reward board" may be a means of facilitating what you desire. If that is correct, Suburban Express would be amenable to doing something there, to facilitate the charitable donation(s) that you deisre. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• (1)The Bounty Board is a survival form the early days of WP, and I think rather than tinkering with the criteria, it is time to remove it, as facilitating misunderstanding of our mission. Perhaps the way to deal with it is MfD, & I have taken it there at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination). Offering material rewards for writing WP articles is not forbidden, just as paid editing is not actually forbidden, but neither should be institutionalized as part of WP.

(2) I do not consider the complaints against Corporate M are made in good faith. The errors complained of are trivial and correctable, and the charges against him wildly excessive. I take note, as with an earlier discussions, that there is an accusation that because CM sometimes conducts paid editing ,he is therefore unreliable altogether. I am not sure whether there is any connection between the two complainants.

(3) As for SE, I think it's time for a community ban, including talk pages and WP space. They seem disruptive everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully, I am amazed that they haven't made this easy on us by making a legal threat. Given their history, it is astounding. Resolute 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask somebody to write this up to start the community ban. There is enough evidence just on this page to support one. Given the acknowledged history of filing lawsuits, and the passively acknowledged link to sockpuppets, there's no hope that we can convince them to stop the disruption. At the same time, I have to admit some bizarre admiration for SE - it's them against the world and they are not backing down no matter what. They sue their competitors, they even sue their customers and appear to have a somewhat successful business. On this page it's them against 10-15 editors, and they are not backing down or even willing to compromise. What else can we do except a community ban? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Complaints against CorporateM are absolutely made in good faith and are valid. Suggest that DGG examine the actual false statements and cited articles, sales edit description(s), etc. At this point, it appears that DGG is shooting from the hip without first gathering information. Suburban Express is puzzled by DGG's assertion that the present discussion is somehow violative of Wikipedia rules or conventions. Suburban Express is objects to false statements and false attributions. The motivation for the present discussion is CorporateM's false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. You keep making these accusations, but you never point to any specific edits. Do you really imagine anyone is going to take your word for it? Evidence, sleaze please. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems as if you did not carefully read the text above your statement. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

The company has a long history of sockpuppets/meatpuppets/CoI editors/possibly paid editors attempting to edit the article in order to make it more flattering of the company - they have tried to emphasize the company's supposed glorious history and to de-emphasize the negative information about lawsuits and astroturfing and trolling on the UIUC subreddit, which are actually the company's main reason for notability (as can be seen from the sources here). Semi-protecting the article hasn't prevented this, and pending changes protection won't either, since there seem to be two autoconfirmed CoI/possibly paid editors, User:Verdict78 and User:HtownCat who advocate for the company and quietly change the article when this article isn't making its usual rounds on the AN/SPI drama boards and no one is paying attention to it. Blocking users/IPs is unlikely to work either, since the company has used a range of sockpuppets in the past (see the sockpuppet investigation here), has access to a wide range of business and residential IP addresses, and many IPs which resolve to Sprint wireless. I see full-protection as the only option to contain this long-term pattern of tendentious editing.

I am very skeptical of the bounty thing - the company is offering money to effectively push the article toward a version that presents the company in a more flattering light. They have used their financial power to bully, harass, intimidate, and silence students who criticized them on the internet (on Reddit, Yelp, etc.) by suing them or threatening to sue them, knowing very well that college students lack the financial means to fight back against a moneyed corporation. They have been unsuccessful largely because Ken White of Popehat has stepped in and arranged pro-bono assistance for the students sued or threatened with lawsuits (the relevant blog post is here). I hope Wikipedia doesn't allow money to become a factor in deciding who gets to influence the article, even if the money is under the guise of charity/donations/for a good cause. AlmostGrad (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express acknowledges AlmostGrad's hatred of Suburban Express, which is frequently expressed here and elsewhere. AlmostGrad has been a tireless detractor for many months. As previously stated, Suburban Express is concerned with false statements and false attributions made in the Suburban Express article and is working within the wikipedia "ecosystem" to facilitate correction of false statements and attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation: The problem isn't my drinking. The problem is you complaining about my drinking. --00:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

SuburbanExpress sounds like an idiot for referring to itself repeatedly in the 3rd person, and by doing so makes it clear that the (ip) account is intended to represent a company (possibly used by multiple editors) which are both violations of wikipedia policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your attack does not advance the discussion. 99.67.249.6 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to note that IP 99.147.29.158 is registered to Suburban Express as seen here under the Customer Name

24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

A few editors have seen enough at the Suburban Express Talk page, here on the drama board and the company's approach to the bounty board[49] to get a sense of things. This particular organization is unlikely to make any substantive positive contributions, but has a long track record of harassment, disruption and corrupt COI participation.

I propose:

1. Blocking the Suburban Express range of IP addresses that have been posting personal attacks: 99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119
2. Blocking non-disclosed paid editors user:Verdict78 and user:HtownCat (perhaps this should be handled separately since they insist they do not have a COI)
3. Increase the article's protection to either full protection or reviewer status
4. Get the article on a few more watchlists, in particular for block evasion

CorporateM (Talk) 02:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please point out examples of what you consider to be personal attacks by Suburban Express in this discussion, so that Suburban Express can avoid upsetting discussion participants in the future. Suburban Express understands that you may be uncomfortable being called out on false statements and false attributions, but criticism of your writing and citations is not intended to read as personal attacks.99.147.28.113 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• strong support Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I support items 1, 3, and 4. Re item 2, Verdict78 and HtownCat have clear bias in favor of Suburban Express, but I'd want to see the evidence of paid editing or other policy violations before supporting sanctions. CU is warranted as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

The proposal above does not remedy the large number of false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article.

Suburban Express proposes that CorporateM, who has made a large percentage of the edits to the Suburban Express article in recent months, and is therefore responsible for most of the text and citations, undertake the following:

1) Read each sentence of the article which is attributed to a source.

2) Read the cited source and verify that the attributed sentence/information is present in the source.

3) Correct all inconsistencies.

Earlier, you seemed to profess to be concerned about these problems, so this proposal should not seem to onerous. Furthermore, undertaking the corrections would quickly dispose of the current matter and relieve others from making the corrections. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Close as improper proposal and possibly trolling. A proposal at ANI has to propose something that an administrator has the right/power to do. For example, anyone can propose that I be required to no longer edit a particular article (also known as a topic ban) because administrators have the power/right to require that of me in order to prevent disruption. However, one cannot make a motion to require me to edit a particular article because I am always free to stop editing any page, and no administrator can force me to edit it or block me for refusing to edit it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously not a formal rule-based proposal. The goal was to bring this discussion back to earth and back to the issue at the top - inaccurate statements in the article and citations which do not support the statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Guidance Sought

Suburban Express has come here to make specific complaints about a specific user's contribution to the Suburban Express article. The complaints are objective and easily verified. Two examples were provided at the top, and pursuant to a very small number constructive suggestions, Suburban Express stated that it would provide a more comprehensive set of (objective) examples "this evening or tomorrow evening".

Wikipedia community has responded by attacking Suburban Express from every angle, making numerous repeated unsupported claims, hurling insults, and generally working to cause the discussion to drift far from the initial, objective, and valid complaint about the user and article.

Suburban Express will work to provide a well-supported list of false statements and false attributions/citations, and will post Friday evening..

With regard to claims of personal attacks by Suburban Express in this particular arena - we are very puzzled by this. The way we see it:

SE: We have a problem. Here it is.

Wikipedia: You are a-holes, F.U..

SE: We're trying to address this specific problem, let's stay on topic.

Wikipedia: F.U.register a username, the ip address you are using is registered to SE

SE: We know the ip address is registered to SE. All statements from this ip address are from us.

Wikipedia: You're disruptive. We're going to get the rope and torches and ban you for being disruptive.

It is not clear to us how Wikipedia insulting Suburban Express in this discussion constitutes a ban-able infraction by Suburban Express.

Perhaps one of the least emotional participants can explain this to us. We are quite baffled.

Also, we are quite puzzled by a contradiction we see here repeatedly. Wikipedia simultaneously refers to Suburban Express as small, puny, and not notable AND talks about Suburban Express as if it's a huge corporate monolith -- "the man" to be reviled by all. Suburban Express is probably neither. We are a small business that employs about 10 people regularly and up to 75 subcontracted employees a few days a year. We exist in a competitive market where we must be frugal at all times, deter fraud as best we can, jump through endless regulatory hoops, try to keep all our computers running and protected from online attackers, etc...all to eek out a modest profit--sometimes. So which is it? Puny and non-notable or huge and evil? Unfortunately, the world isn't actually binary like that.

In any event, we will endeavor to post our analysis of the article tomorrow -- assuming that we have not been banned by then for letting ourselves be abused here.

99.147.28.113 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by a number of the responses above, and I can't explain them. Thank you for your transparency here. As I said above, a clear, comprehensive and concise case against CorporateM is needed if you want action on that - and you're best qualified (and motivated) to prepare that. To demonstrate tendentiousness, you may take into account behaviour going back some time. More than errors need to be shown, you need to make it clear how CorporateM's edits slant the tone against you in each instance.

But that doesn't address the issue of undue weight being given to negative reports, which may be the case, and possible over-reliance on poor sources. Of these last two, I'd be inclined to first take the sources, if you think some are not good quality per WP:RS, (a clear, concise list of any that concern you, explaining what each is being used to prove - a source may be suitable to support one kind of claim but not another) to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard for opinions and advice from uninvolved editors with experience assessing sources. Then, once the sources have been sorted, open a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and ask for input on the amount and nature of text devoted to criticism. But you're free to do this in whatever sequence you're comfortable with, or not at all.

I know how much time and effort this will involve, and you have my sympathy; but that is the best way forward that I can presently think of. Don't hesitate to ask here or at my talk page if you have any questions or want someone to look over anything before you present it to a noticeboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, here's a much more concise guidance: Focus on the specific points in the article you would want to see re-evaluated, and drop the attacks against other editors. This thread here is laden with them, and pretty much everything else Suburban is writing is so too. It is very obvious at this stage that while the community at large will agree that the wording in the article can be improved and made more precise, there is also a consensus that you have no case against specific editors.

In other words, focus on edits, not editors. This will leave open your capacity to bring up what you see as issues on the article's talk page, and seek further input at other places.

I understand that the whole situation may be frustrating, but any further lashing out at or about anyone else here will lead to an indefinite block. This would limit your ability to comment about content to e-mail. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Motion regarding Manning naming dispute

By motion of the committee, finding of fact 22, regarding Baseball Bugs, has been replaced by the following:

During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct [50], [51] [52]; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [53] [54] [55] [56]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [57].

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Headaches with regards to Lynx (spacecraft)

I am making a request for some informal mediation to take place among the participants of the Linx (spacecraft) article and to review the behavior of User:Skyring. I think this needs to have a few additional eyeballs to witness the discussion and for perhaps policy to be explained to some of the participants as appropriate. Yes, I'm willing to be educated if I'm going over the top here too.

I would appreciate any assistance from anybody involved in this matter. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My observation, before I bailed out of that discussion for my own sanity's sake, is that Skyring/Pete (he signs using the latter name) is engaged in disruption involving a complete misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH, with refusal to listen and/or Wikilayering using weasel-words when contradicted. A quick glance at the shenanigans since then indicates no apparent change in behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the article relies too much on primary sources and obvious press releases. We should drop those and use the numerous good secondary sources available, such as those from the industry press and Smithsonian Air and Space. That's in accord with WP:PRIMARY. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2)

There are 11 pages whose edits by everybody require reviews. I really thought that level-two PC is no longer active. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Corbet's Couloir

This and this should redirect here. Anyone know why they're blacklisted? Brycehughes (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The first one has a Hex C2 92 before the s (CorbetÂ’s Couloir) and the second has a Hex C2 92 after the s (Corbet'sÂ’ Couloir). Searching for either one brings you to a search result that links to Corbet's Couloir. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange... I wonder how I ended up with a Hex C2 92. Anyway, thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko socking

At User talk:Jimbo Wales#The disgraceful state of Wikipedia, Kumioko (User:KumiokoCleanStart) is editing as a variable IP ([58][59], and as himself[60], but repeatedly pretends to be two different editors[61][62] and uses that as an argument that he is right (" That editor is accused of being disgruntled and angry and then the user responds to several comments essentially confirming what I started the discussion about."). While he is not fooling any experienced editors, it is still a violation of WP:SOCK. He was blocked early in 2013 for socking ([63]) and unblocked on the condition that "has agreed to edit solely from User:KumiokoCleanStart and not any other accounts or IPs. User:Kumioko remains globallylocked." I have no idea if that condition remains or has been lifted afterwards, but it doesn't really matter, since the socking he did in that discussion is never allowed. I'm not neutral or uninvolved wrt Kumioko, so I can't take any action here, but I don't believe this kind of disruption should be tolerated. Fram (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)