Talk:Web Sheriff/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

deletion of sourced material

I have reverted an edit by anon IP who was previously known as Luisarfs and who left a previous discussion that was closed after he or HelloAnnYong made no reply for over 30 days. I had to make his suggested edit about Peter Sunde for him. He is an editor from Portugal who edits about a competing organization on anti-piracy enforcement. He is removing sourced material. HelloAnnYong also left the discussion at the same time with no further discussion. Agadant (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that[1] was me. Luísarfs (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Disrespectful terms used in summary

Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motivated when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [2] All but the barest descriptions are being reversed. The company is not even being allowed to be called an "international policing company". He has changed that often used term to an organization which is effect, not correct. Agadant (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not involved in policing (which has a very specific meaning) in any way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Policing" can also mean "general cleaning" of an area (although usually used as a military term). Not exactly a common usage in a WP article, however. And, as used in the article, substantially misleading. Collect (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it can have a more general meaning but if we start an article saying a company is "an international policing organisation", then we are misleading the reader, as you say it's substantially misleading. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Insulting comment ignored by above

This is the biggest issue that you have not addressed: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [3] Agadant (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've used the phrase multiple times on multiple articles, it's simply a phrase, it's not aimed at anyone in particular. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am insulted and personally offended by your filthy, salacious comment that was directed to me and my editing!!!! Agadant (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I lol'ed. Seriously though, this article needs less fluff that sounds like it was devised by a PR firm and more honest editing. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You betchum! On a scale of 1 to 10 on the "nasty-summary-ometer" this one barely makes a 3. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NO MATTER HOW MANY OF HIS FRIENDS DEFEND HIM, IT STILL STANDS HE WAS OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING! JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SAY IT'S OKAY DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Agadant (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- Cameron and I are not "buddies" as a matter of fact. Indeed, we "intersect" on a grand total of eleven articles, on many of which we disagreed. He and Tarc intersect on 9 articles. Tarc and I on a total of 5 articles. In short - almost no overlap among us at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL: Uncivil comments on his part and not even an apology as regardless of whether you all think it is funny, I don't. Agadant (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It merits a "3" on a 1 to 10 scale. My suggestion is that you have a cup of tea and look at what is regarded on WP as serious incivility. Read some of WP:WQA for example - where serious defamatory claims about people have been made which make this one look trivial. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cameron, I appreciate your contributions to the clean up of this article but your BJ comment is not appropriate and you would do well to strike it. Also, Agadant, please note that according to WP:CIVIL the use of capital letters on a talk page is not appropriate and is the Wiki equivalent of shouting, see WP:SHOUT.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this article for three days. I don't know what's going on here, but you guys need to work it out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? Not twelve hours after the protection wore off, you guys are back to warring? Whatever. It's indefinitely protected now, so you have no choice but to work out your issues. Let me know when you've come to some conclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is a significant amount of history here, but none of the edits since the last protection struck me as edit warring. In fact, I would not consider any of them even a revert. How did the edits since the last protection differ from your expectations? VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there were three successive edits all about the first sentence of the article. You guys can't even agree on that? Come on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits resulted in a (IMHO) better lead sentence than was there before, that appears to have been considered by all parties a reasonable compromise. Not really the same thing as edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Here's how it went. Agadant removed four references and changed it to 'organisation'. Then Tarc changed it back to 'company'. And then Agadant changed it back again. All within forty-five minutes. No, I'm sorry - this isn't the way things should go. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not what happened at all. And I never wrote in organisation. Only left it as edited by someone else temporarily in a previous edit and then changed it to company - which is correct. I had put in the references myself and brought up removal and my reasons why on the talk page.

I made one edit and one talk page comment about said edit. Do not lump me in with any sort of "edit warring" please, that is the height of intellectual dishonesty. It's like NBA refs who don't bother to investigate what actually happened in a foul situation and just give technical fouls all around. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, I'll remove the protection. But I will be watching this page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I sincerely hope that I will not look like a fool in 12 hours (at least not more than usual). VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean and why post it here? Well, it seems clear to me but that has always been my conclusion of what is taking place here. It is a futile effort by me as first indicated by Keithbob when he asked me to step aside and let others do their work on the article. A foregone conclusion. Everyone here has their assigned roles and mine is to exit, huh? Agadant (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It means that I requested that the page be unprotected because of my optimism that the people working on this article (a group that includes myself) would be able to edit in a way that avoided the problems that caused the protection in the first place, and that I hope that optimism is not misplaced. It was not intended to target any individual. VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OKay, thanks. I plan to work on the lede and have posted a new section below. Your stated here: "The lead section of an article is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the article, so it tends to get more careful scrutiny." The current lead looks like it was written by an elementary school student. It definitely needs work and information. Agadant (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The lede according to WP:Lead does not adequately represent the company - but of course, it will soon as more and more information that was not even close to POV is taken out of it. All links were taken out of the tiny, bare-to-the-minimum lead. Why is that? I notice that this company article has 3 nice paragraphs for the lede and includes internal links. Bridgewater Associates and history - Oh and it also has the word "unique" in the lead, which was removed from this one and called "weasel" word. I believe that is when Cameron Scott referred to my giving the company a BJ for including the word. Agadant (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

BitTorrent File Sharers

The Claim that BT File Sharers "are much more resistant to a friendly approach" is without warrant (at least as is) and not addressed by appropriate research (or really any) in the cited source. While I am sure that they may receive a demand letter, threat, or other sort of legal process if they do not reply/respond to a "friendly" approach, this is a broad and damning/defamatory claim about what is likely a quite broad group. -Unsigned left by 67.11.58.88

Update- my mistake, I read it as conditional (those who are not responsive), that is corrected (BT users simply may receive a demand). While this may be prefaced on the company's belief that they are resistant, that is an unsupported claim (I understand it is being used as a justification for the action, but the source does not support that BT users are in fact resistant). My latest edit is incorrect IF the company does reach out before sending such notice, which does not seem accurate based on the source/previous phrasing). -Unsigned left by 67.11.58.88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.58.88 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Client list

I see Keithbob has decided that a company that operates for its clients can not have a client section. Agadant (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't all companies operate for their clients? It does not necessarily follow that the clients need to be listed out in the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, doesn't necessarily follow but it is informative content for readers and it shouldn't be excluded and called POV, in the case of this company. Some record label company's articles have similar listing of recording artists. WMG artists And what do you think of the lede questions I posed? Agadant (talk)

Can you re-write the section above to focus on content rather than editors? VQuakr (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am usually a very congenial person if approached with respect and courtesy. I have not been treated that way at all here on this article even before this NPOV assault. It is seemingly a very contentious and controversial topic and I have been in the line of fire for editing it. My comments have been extraordinarily mild and polite if compared and under the circumstances. Why shouldn't I be sarcastic it Keithbob who deleted most of the Web Sheriff lede has put up three nice paragraphs for the lede in his article and included the word "unique" that Cameron Scott humiliated and insulted me over. Yeh, I'm human, after all! Agadant (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FA article for guide

The Million Dollar Homepage This article is a good example for article formatting, section heads, etc.. Pixel Sales would be equivalent to client section in Web Sheriff and Media Attention would be similar to In the Media in Web Sheriff. Agadant (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) It has a nice little write-up about the founder too and with a quote from him in quote box. Really good article, very informative and nicely put together! Agadant (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A more direct comparison would be a FA page about a company rather than one about a web site. Delrina seems like a pretty good example to me. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Delrina sells software, so really doesn't have much similarities. I don't think you will find any FA article that is exactly the same type of company as this. I've looked for guidance and formatting purposes, WP policies, etc.. The Million Dollar Homepage comes closest and serves as a good illustration of the fact that FA articles have such information as In the Media (Media Attention), Pixel Sales (clients) informative founding information, etc. as in the Web Sheriff article of a few weeks ago.Agadant (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so the Million Dollar Homepage is the best go-by not because it is about a similar topic, but because it contains the content you want to include? That seems rather circular. VQuakr (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh no indeed, I had already included that content and very similar to in The Million Dollar Homepage and It was all deleted as not appropriate in an article etc. I have shown by putting forth this FA article, that those condemnations of the type of information allowed were not correct. - the sections, material and type of information are perfectly acceptable and the company article you chose, of course, did not contain them. What really matters is whether that type of content is allowed and the article I chose shows that it is included in the very best of articles. It doesn't matter whether the article is about a website or a company. It's content related.Agadant (talk)

I'll look it up and post what reasons were give for deleting the sections, "In the Media", "Clients", "founding of the company information" if they were given even. If this had been intended to be a 'fairly' executed improvement of the article it would not have been a massive deletion by multiple editors without any discussion on the talkpage. There was no WP:AGF at all and the comments on the summaries were brutal and uncalled for. To me it was obviously meant to be intimidating and humiliating and to incapacitate me quickly. Editor's work is valuable and if heavily researched and sourced has taken many long hours of work. Other editors if well-intentioned don't just maul over someone elses editing with no respect for any of that. Agadant (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of TMDH and WS on 24 July 2011

FA article: The Million Dollar Homepage Compare content on each:

• Development 13 August 2011 version of TMDH

to:

• History 24 July 2011 version of Web Sheriff article

Web Sheriff was founded by former music attorney, John Giacobbi in 2000.[8] Prior to forming Web Sheriff, Giacobbi had been an independent consultant to record labels and artists including Village People. The formation of the company evolved from a need to help Village People retain their rights on the internet, in a time before downloadsbut when the sale of CD bootlegs and other copyright infringements had become a major problem for the band. As their consultant, Giacobbi advised Village People that if something was not done they would lose all their copyrights on the internet. He explained the formation of the company and its naming in an interview for Men's Health: "Much to my surprise, there was no one who really controlled rights at the time, so I stepped up. People used to call the Internet the 'new Wild West', so we thought, who best to ride into town to sort it out than the Web Sheriff?"[5] Giacobbi had previously worked for several prominent music companies including CBS, Warner/Chappell Music,Zomba Label Group and RCA/BMG.[10] Steve Orchard, CEO for Quidem and former group operations director and board member of GCap Media acts as chairman of the corporation.[11] Orchard, a graduate ofUniversity of Oxford, started a career in radio in 1985 as a DJ with GWR Bristol. During the 1990s he was group programme director of GWR, programme director of Classic FM and operations director for GWR's local radio division.[12] The company has offices in Marlborough and London and a team of twenty employees working shifts for clients on a twenty-four basis with a seven day work week.[1][13]

Does anyone have any thoughts on these sections from the two different articles? Of course the Web Sheriff article is not FA, so can't compare exactly at standards level, but content is similar.

To repeat, there is not consensus that TMDH is a good choice of article to use as a model for this article. If you feel comparison with another article would be helpful, please consider choosing a FA on a company. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. I thought this NPOV thing was about former WS article not acceptable and promoting/ NPOV along content/wording lines. This article shows that content such as founding of company, details on founder is okay as included in FA article. Not being confrontational (by any means) but can you show me where we have to use company/company as guide or can't include it? Or can you show me where this type of information is POV/Advert? I feel like it can be included by putting the FA article up as an example... am I wrong about that? Please answer yes or no and if possible give rules so that I will understand.Agadant (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS and other policies are often open to interpretation but looking at this FA article is black and white, so everyone can understand if certain material can be included in a WP article. (not about formatting but content choices and acceptability. Guess I must not make myself clear at all, sometimes.) Agadant (talk)

Note: for expediency sake, if you don't understand what I mean by acceptability of content as in TMDH and WS, please ask for more details and I will try to be better at explaining. But the company/company is completely foreign to me as a prerequisite to content acceptability. Is there a WP:POLICY or WP:GUIDE that shows what we can not include in a company article... I know I am rambling on but I'm at a loss for words after your surprising answer. I must be very poor at explaining, huh? Agadant (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would that mean that only websites can have information on founding of website, naming of it and career history of website founders? Agadant (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No. What it does mean is that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Wikipedia does not include client lists for non-notable or barely-notable companies as a rule. Wikipedia uses ordinary English, and not company slogans. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would you pursue the premise of non-notability? Out of context and leaning rather POV, don't you think? But, on that note, I will collect reliable sources (I have them already, in fact) to show that the company is frequently called "the world's leading internet policing specialist" and written up in newspapers like The Los Angeles Times, Esquire, Rolling Stone, etc. etc. etc. Notable enough in their field to have had three protected albums on the charts in the top three slots at one time by three of the biggest female artists in the business: Adele, Lady Gaga and Beyonce. But this has been removed, hasn't it and now you bring up the issue of notability? hmm...You guys always side-track the dialogue because you can not cite WP policies that back you up. Agadant (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would we use an article about a website as a basis to build an article about a company? All I see here is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and (for reasons unknown) a desperate attempt to make sure that a client list is included. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you making charges against my integrity, Cameron Scott? What are your reasons for pursuing your condemnation of me with insinuations and obscene insults? Never an attempt to be civil, just nastiness and remarks such as "bring on the flame throwers" and that I am "giving the company a blow job." Oddly emotionally charged editing on your part. Why are you allowed to get away with this behaviour and endorsed by the others when you do?. I am not desperate at all - just don't care for "gang mentality" at work and for injustice and unfair methods applied against one editor and one obviously 'controversial' company whose line of work is "anti-piracy". HelloAnnyong, who has joined forces with the gang here has made edits to "The Pirate Bay" and file sharing. There were no WP policies cited when the material was removed mostly by Keithbob, just summaries like "WEDON'TNEEDTHISINFO..." Who is the "WE" he refers to and why do they get to speak for the readers who may be interested in such information? No, Cameron Scott, I am just a committed WP editor who believes the policies should be carried out with impartiality and with polite and intelligent dialogue when discussing their use. Cite some policy for a change - not your personal opinion. Be mature in your comments when you appear here for a change. Agadant (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a non-issue

WP:NN "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."

In the media or media attention: (these are only the major, most prominent sources of coverage)

Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, Esquire, Q, Los Angeles Times, The Independent, The Village Voice, The Guardian, BBC Radio 6, Evening Standard, Music Week CNET, The Times, The Mail on Sunday, Folha de S. Paulo, CBS, Men's Health, The Scotsman, Syndicated News, The Fader and other newspapers, journals and news media.

Plus add recently:

Huffington Post John Giacobbi

Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 Music connection Digital copy

Just a few independent quotations from reliable sources about the company:

Huffington Post: "Web Sheriff Founder John Giacobbi is long renowned as the leading anti-piracy specialist in the music industry Since founding Web Sheriff, clients have ranged from all-time legends such as MICHAEL JACKSON, DYLAN, PRINCE and VAN MORRISON, through to today’s hottest artists, such as LADY GAGA, ADELE and BEYONCE, "

The Los Angeles Times: "[Web Sheriff] has emerged as a leading advocate of the soft sell in representing artists including Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, the Prodigy, Adele and others. This gentle, gradual approach -- used on three of the biggest-selling albums of the last year -- represents a sharp turn in the recording industry's life-and-death struggle with piracy, one driven largely by performers and their managers rather than the record companies."

Rolling Stone: "Web Sheriff'client base is growing rapidly...The company provides a range of web-policing services"

Musician Coaching: "John and his company have helped many well-known artists keep the theft of their content to a minimum" "Your company seems as much a fan outreach organization as it does a policing organization,"

The Guardian: "For years ISP's around the world have cooperated wtih his company when he's brought copyright infringement to their attentions."

The Fader: "a pretty weird thing: an artist-hired, sometimes clandestine but always incredibly personable copyright enforcement agency that continues to leave a very real mark on art on the internet, probably differently than forces before them" Agadant (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I have no idea why you have added this section - has there been any suggestion that the subject of the article is not notable?--Cameron Scott (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, Collect did in above section. See below for exact sentence. Are you guys siamese twins? - Just a little humuor to lighten things up. Agadant (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn;t see any such cavils either. The problem is more that the amount of PR material in the article makes it non-utile as an encyclopedia article IMHO. The excess puff harms the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I went to all the trouble for you Collect and now you don't seem to even remember that you made this comment above: "Wikipedia does not include client lists for non-notable or barely-notable companies as a rule. Cheers. Collect 11:20, 14 August 2011" - Your comment on PR material is your opinion only and highly subjective. Where are policies to back it up? The quotes above are from independent reliable sources and exactly the kind of material we build articles on Wiki from as here - WP:SECONDARY. Agadant (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I consider the firm, indeed, to be "barely notable". I did not, however, suggest deletion of the article on such grounds - only removing clear puffery. PR puffery is defined by Potter Stewart. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect, sorry, but we shouldn't have to consider whether you think it is notable or not. That's opinion based. Notable compared to what or which other anti-piracy company? And your distaste for the company has always been apparent. You haven't tried to hide it and you shouldn't be allowed to edit here because of it. But you are holding this article to standards even not found in FA articles. Hey, look puffery is very subjective and that's why we go by policy and not individual editor's opinions. One of the editors here (won't go into that again) actually called the word "unique" a weasel word here and deleted. But there it is used in the lede for Bridgewater Associates by editor Keithbob. Goes to show you never can tell. So we definitely have to cite policy and not use personal opinions. And here's the WP:W2W that we should look at before deleting anything that could be a subjective decision.Agadant (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You assume a non-fact -- I have absolutely no opinions about the company. I do have opinions about editing Wikipedia encyclopedia articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But editing should be based on policies and guidelines. That is why they were set up: to preserve the encyclopedia from being deleted by individual editor's opinions.Agadant (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like there is unanimity that this article should not be deleted on the grounds of notability; we can probably move on. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the question being addressed by my notability section was switched over to whether the article should be "deleted" by Collect and now again switched to that by you. Even though I furnished the entire sentence quoted for full clarity by Collect. What he did say and as I quoted him is: "Wikipedia does not include client lists for non-notable or barely-notable companies as a rule." As I have shown, this company is notable enough for articles in some of the best publications in the music industry and top newspapers. After doing my part to answer Collect on notability issue - Why shouldn't the article on subject company have a listing of clients if taken from reliable sources? TMDH does, as I have shown (pixel sales), Warner Bros. Records does (list of artists). What rules or policies prevent for information purposes for the readers a listing of the most prominent: Prince, Michael Jackson, Bryan Adams, Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Lady Gaga, Adele, Beyonce, etc. All information that was quickly deleted from the article has been subject only to the individual opinion of the editor of the moment, who deleted without citing policy, so now we need to examine whether those deletions hold up. I've shown already that some deletions were subjectively done and never questioned by any editor. I did ask for help stopping it at the time, as otherwise I was powerless. The process was probably a first occurence of its kind on Wikipedia, IMO. Agadant (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how we are going to proceed here - your frankly odd behaviour and statements are not conductive to good editing. Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT about the client list (you seems increasingly desperate to get that in - like someone is relying on you to do so) and your transformation into a SPI are also troubling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the thread above under Comparison of TMDH, nowhere in that thread did I bring up getting the client list in, but Collect sidetracked the discussion to it by saying the company was not notable enough, therefore when I showed that it was, it left his comment open to discussion. That is how a typical debate works. You are once again discussing opinion and making personal judgments. My behaviour is not odd at all. I have explained that I want to see the deletions backed up by WP Policy and rules.. My sense of fairness depends that I have deletion of my writing explained. I feel like just the fact that I spent my time writing about the infamous in some circles, Web Sheriff my time consuming work has paid the price. BTW, I was cleared of COI charges. Your comment about my turning into a SPI is rather odd but I have nothing to hide. It is because I have been having vision problems, computer problems, and personal family problems while all this it going on. (When it rains, it pours) The only time I have to devote for Wiki right now is here... What IDONTHEAR are policies. Why won't you discuss policy? Agadant (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss policy here: What WP Policy and rules apply here to prevent an independent editor putting in information that gives the more prominent clients of the company as given by reliable sources. To not do so seems to be an unfair suppression of information in this article alone. No personal opinion and please don't sidetrack but give policy. Agadant (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is a policy. There is not a consensus for adding a clients list to the article. Looking at the prior discussions, a common reason for this appears to be the concerns that a clients list may interfere with building a neutral (also a policy) article. Please note though that editors are allowed to have opinions about what is editorially favorable in an article.

Agadant started a section on notability and I assumed we were talking about whether an AfD was warranted; it was not my intent to hijack and I apologize if I inadvertently did so. VQuakr (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

All of the WP:Consensus, would be dependent on whether the editor's have shown WP:AGF and have worked to improve the article as in WP:NPOV or just deleted material in a very swift manner and who knows what consensus was at the time? It was not shown publicly. Anything can be said now, after the fact. I am puzzled by the fact that all edits by these editors were deletionist and in fact find the article damaged with refs out of place, etc. and not improved and not in compliance with WP:MOS as in the lede. Like every editor I am subject to making errors for various reasons, but it shouldn't be assumed that I have not acted in good faith on these occasions. If I inadvertently used a press release somewhere, it was published in a reliable source such as CBS, etc.. and I would have done so unknowingly. That fact could have been brought forward and the source replaced or if not possible the material deleted. I would not have objected to that in the slightest but I was never given the opportunity to do that. I was threatened with being topic banned, with being blocked on the page, and with a report that was filed on me with COI board. All this while, I was under extreme duress elsewhere. I repeat, I have not been treated with respect or in the principles of good faith. I have had a good record for almost 5 years here with over 11,000 edits. Why should I be put below Luisarfs as an editor here and always treated like the enemy. I don't find that acceptable or good practice against another editor. If you guys are so far above me in your editing knowledge, in your application of policy, in your ability to form a completely NPOV consensus, then why haven't you gone about it in a more professional way, showing me that your intentions were good and your deletions were warranted. I am not unreasonable, just unconvinced. Agadant (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I really am beginning to see on what assumption you all have based your wrongful consensus that my editing is POV or COI. Keithbob mentioned that I had 95% of the edits and now I observed that Collect believes that if an editor has a higher than average amount of edits, it is excessive and deserves special suspicions. Collect/counting edits. I'm hear to tell you that every editor, who does so, has their own reason or reasons for large amounts of edits to one article and that a high percentage doesn't count if no one else chooses to edit the article other than vandals and editors with an agenda. If I had only edited fifty times on the article in the last year, I would have a high percentage of the edits. No other serious editor chose to edit there (well, maybe some deletions proposed by a few.) I would have welcomed someone to work constructively with in compiling the article. I do squirm from deletionists who have nothing else to contribute. I am a person who has to develop a large amount of interest in a subject, when reading about it (and not necessarily all in a positive POV, or else I don't bother with it. That's a personality trait and extends to all areas of my life, not just Wikipedia. So, assuming a large amount of edits fits an editor into a certain mold is just wrong. People who become a sort of expert on a subject are the ones who have most to contribute to Wikipedia and to assume they have to in some way profit/and or benefit from the time spent is assuming a lot and wrongfully. Sometimes an editor just wants to contribute and have readers who are interested in the topic benefit from the information. Agadant (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, "Web Sheriff" remains "barely notable". It is mentioned in some articles about Prince's legal actions. With essentially no content beyond (for example) " In September Prince appointed the internet company Web Sheriff to police the removal of up to 2000 clips from YouTube." Such mentions do not particularly inspire a belief that the company is especially notable. Many of the cites found are press releases, which are deprecated as sources, if I recall correctly. Most cites, in fact, are not RS as they are SPS sources using press releases for content etc. I am unsure that BUZZMEDIA [4] qualifies as a reliable source as it has "paid for" celebrity "official site" pages. The only "solid" cit appears to be BBC News - and that article is primarily about the stars and not about "Web Sheriff". John Giacobbi, founder of internet security company Web Sheriff, which has worked with such artists as Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Adele, says pre-release leaks are virtually inevitable. may help in calling Giacobbi notable, but it does not really make "Web Sheriff" notable." Collect (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Another sidetrack: Not to argumentative at all, but I furnished a whole list of reliable sources with articles about company: (These are very reliable sources and only deal with the company as a subject:

Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, Esquire, Q, Los Angeles Times, The Independent, The Village Voice, The Guardian, BBC Radio 6, Evening Standard, Music Week CNET, The Times, The Mail on Sunday, Folha de S. Paulo, CBS, Men's Health, The Scotsman, Syndicated News, The Fader and other newspapers, journals and news media. Huffington Post John Giacobbi Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 Music connection Digital copy

What's this about BUZZMEDIA? I don't believe I added that at all? I don't see it in the article's list of references? Agadant (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As it is the actual publisher of some of your cites, you should become more aware of it. It specializes in "official sites" for celebrities <g>. Meanwhile, examine the Web Sheriff press releases. I submit that notability dervies from sources being interested enough to say something substantive. The BBC is RS - but says essentially zilch to make WS nore than barely notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Another sidetrack, you still didn't address the listing above! What's with that? Here again: Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, Esquire, Q, Los Angeles Times, The Independent, The Village Voice, The Guardian, BBC Radio 6, Evening Standard, Music Week CNET, The Times, The Mail on Sunday, Folha de S. Paulo, CBS, Men's Health, The Scotsman, Syndicated News, The Fader and other newspapers, journals and news media.Huffington Post

John Giacobbi Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 - Music connection Digital copy Very reliable sources - Rolling Stone, Esquire, Q, Men's Health etc etc etc and definitely prove notability... most are visible on line: just find them in the history and the refs will be live to view. The titles I believe show the articles feature on Web Sheriff, BTW. Why do you continue to ignore them? I'm really puzzled. Agadant (talk)

NOTE: Relisting for clarity (I did a very messy job above) and because the company has been said to be 'barely notable' and that just isn't so - at least not in the music, film and anti-piracy industry:

Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, Esquire, Q, Los Angeles Times, The Independent, The Village Voice, The Guardian, BBC Radio 6, Evening Standard, Music Week CNET, The Times, The Mail on Sunday, Folha de S. Paulo, CBS, Men's Health, The Scotsman, Syndicated News, The Fader and other newspapers, journals and news media. Add these recent RS articles: BBC and Huffington Post. Actually here is an easy link to the In the media section that gives the name of the articles and a lot of them are viewable online. These are not the only top quality reliable sources for the article, but they are a listing of only the articles from a source that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. links to Reliable Sources as previously listed in article Agadant (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Policing by private companies

Internet "policing" by a private company is a valid description as referred to in this thesis from University of Leeds. [5] I think the 5 sources, I included to back it up look cumbersome in the lead sentence. I think it should be accepted without them. If anyone disagrees I will put some or all of them back. Agadant (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your sources use the term in a self-referential manner, i.e. the Village voice putting it in quotes, ""Internet policing specialists" to quote how this organization sees itself. Sorry, but "internet policing" is not an industry or a job description; it is hype. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. I furnished a thesis showing it is performed by public or private companies. I think what the company is called by newspapers, interviewers etc. is as valid as you saying it is not an industry and that it is hype. I'm not sure you are the ultimate authority here even over the Univesity of Leeds? Agadant (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking past your sarcasm, the University of Leeds (especially not one particular thesis) is not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia. I agree that the 5 sources that were up before tended to be self-referential in nature and did not adequately establish what should probably be a pretty high bar for such a strong term. I like the more recent "compromise" version per Agadant better. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@VQuakr, maybe a little sarcastic, but being said to intentionally promote "hype" and, all else, I've been said to do on here is a little tiresome! I've seen the company called "internet policing company" so many times by newspapers, radio interviews, etc. that it is one I'm sure not many would even question or think twice of, much less revert over. I actually wouldn't have ever thought there was a high bar for such a simple, descriptive term. Here's this Wiki article: private police that refers to security guards for stores, etc. It may not mention internet police but does establish that there is such an industry as policing in the private sector and would relate to Web Sheriff as security guards but on the internet. What is the big deal about internet policing term, I don't get it? Agadant (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your frustration is understandable. Things seemed to have spiraled a bit in the last 10 days or so, but I think it is still very possible to restore a more productive editing environment. One important first step will be for everyone to stop sniping.

The question is not whether the concept of private police exists; it unambiguously does. The question is whether that term can be neutrally and verifiably applied to the subject of this article. I understand that using this phrase was uncontroversial from your perspective when you first used it; but once another editor expressed disagreement over it, the term is no longer uncontroversial. The lead section of an article is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the article, so it tends to get more careful scrutiny.

In general and in my opinion, the heart of this debate about whether the article should reflect how the company characterizes itself (either through primary sources or self-referential in nature as Tarc mentioned), or whether the POV of the article should reflect a more third-party view. The overwhelming consensus based on feedback from the NPOV board and here is that tone should be more third-party in nature. This is why this phrase and other similar phrases have the potential to be important. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look back to the Dec. 2008 creation of the article, you'll see that the term "internet police" actually originated there at the beginning on this article, it wasn't through my editing. creating article. And that editor didn't seem to be a fan! And if you look back, at the history, you'll see there are only 3 or 4 entries by other editors except vandalism or POV negative unsourced comments, etc. and a few Bots until March 27, 2011 when it was turned in by Luisarfs for a 3O opinion (ruling: Not an Advert) Luisarfs has established a residency on here and in a strictly negative capacity. As I've said time and time again, his very few other edits other than to Web Sheriff, deleting half the article or putting tags based on one word, such as "Propaganda" or "Advert" are to a competitor in Portugal. his contributions I've been admonished for using the word "defend" but if I hadn't, it would still be the vandalized version put up on Rip-Off Report. [6]. Agadant (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the origin of the phrase in this article. Since the 3O a few months ago, a strong consensus has developed at the NPOV noticeboard that the article needs some attention. On articles with contested contents, it is more productive to focus on edits and content rather than other editors. I am still reasonably satisfied with the lead sentence as it is; what are other people's thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I try hard myself to concentrate on edits and content and conclude: There have been many edits lately and there is little content left. The fact that it was judged to be "Not an advert" in March 2011 is important, because it was by a very experienced admin., who I'm very sure would not have ruled that if it had been so outrageously POV, as it is now accused of being. I don't know why the editor changed their mind later but I think it was because of thinking I was COI editing because of a misunderstanding of my edits to a band they assumed was a Web Sheriff client. The band was not, in fact, and I took out the content to remove the controversy I had inadvertently created. Some of the sections deleted here and called POV and promotional are included and worded similarly in even FA articles. When I read comments like this one by Cameron Scott:"This article reads like a press release - it needs the flamethrowers turning on it". Definition The flamethrower is a potent weapon with great psychological impact upon unprepared soldiers, inflicting a particularly horrific death. Well, that doesn't exactly give me a good feeling about the fairness and maturity of some of the editing that has been allowed. In fact, any one is allowed on here now, even Luisarfs with no questions or reverts. The reverts only happen when I try to make an edit. So what it looks like to me is that the article and myself have been put on trial and found guilty and shall now be taken to task. I even pointed out that the editor who put the claim of "Reads like an advert" archived the 3O opinion at the same time, looking very suspicious to me, but apparently deemed unimportant to anyone else. Discussions of deletions have taken place other than the talk page and are quickly implemented, leaving the article's sourcing and wording the worse for wear. I really believe the editing here lately has been very POV and emotionally charged and no one has even taken my concerns seriously as the majority rules . Which I know, doesn't mean that other editors might not have a more favourable view of the article. They are just not getting involved and who can blame them? I will state my views even though not appreciated or considered. If I'm wrong, show me so. Agadant (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A PhD thesis is an unpublished document and also original research it should not be used for sourcing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The non-RS thesis refers to actual crimes, specifically "fraud", (as opposed to civil crimes) in its abstract. There is no indication that the student referred to "policing" as this article used it, as "Web Sheriff" is primarily interested in "civil crimes". It makes abolutely no mention of "Web Sheriff" in its entire content. Thus it rather works against the use of "policing" in this article as a simple matter of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, I was using the example in the thesis referring to your comment: "Policing" can also mean "general cleaning" of an area (although usually used as a military term). Not exactly a common usage in a WP article, however. And, as used in the article, substantially misleading". I was only giving it as an example here on the talk page to show that policing is used for private companies doing internet work. I never would have used it for a source, never tried and never said I would. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that. And I think Web Sheriff should be referred to as a company not an organization. I hurriedly left that description (but didn't endorse it) when I put "internet policing" with the 5 references in the article (the article was locked soon after) and last night I came back and changed organization to company I don't see how that could possibly be a source of controversy. Agadant

(talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, a colorful term that the company uses to play up its self-styled Wild West imagery does not belong in an encyclopedia article. "Anti-piracy" as the lead is now is just fine. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is why do you all care so much about the policing thing? You're very passionate about excluding this, aren't you? I didn't write this in here... the very unenthused creator of the article did. December 2008 version But nevertheless, I did think it was representative as a good description of the company as I have seen it called that in many highly reputable newspapers and magazines. (Your POV us showing here Tarc, but do any of you ever bother to try hiding that fact?) Agadant (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not "passionate" about this subject matter at all...please do not ascribe emotions to me or to my editing suggestions, thank you. It is a simple matter that "internet police" is not a job description. One does not put in their resume "Internet Cop @Web Sheriff, 2003-present". Web Sheriff does not provide "internet policing" to their customers; they assist their customers in securing and protecting their intellectual property against copyright violators. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should use encyclopedic language as supported by reliable sources. The phrase "assist their customers in securing and protecting their intellectual property against copyright violators" is appropriate for WP and if "Internet policing" is not supported by reliable sources it should not be used. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Internet policing is supported by several reliable sources, Keithbob but I really don't feel like wasting my time, right now on this "dead horse". I did not use it in the article first... I only left it as I saw many references backing up the term. It seems to be a 'very' important issue to all of the deletionist editors for 'whatever reason' (?) Agadant (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like Web Sheriff is in agreement with not wishing to be called an "'internet Police Force'": Question by interviewer: "You approach music fans on such a personal level, but the image of a “web sheriff,” of a self-appointed internet police force, seems increasingly not what you’re about. What do you think about that? Answer by John Giacobbi: "Funnily enough, separate to Web Sheriff, I post as my alter ego which is called the Web Citizen. On forums or wherever, when I’m posting personal stuff as opposed to corporate, I tend to do it as Web Citizen. But you raise a very valid point. The image that springs to mind is some kind of cyber-pig, whereas we do a lot more than that, and we’re a lot more proud of the positive stuff we do. I should genuinely think about that, it might be interesting to come up with something slightly less threatening. Because at the end of the day what we do is turn the perceived negative of anti-piracy to the positive function of viral marketing."

http://www.thefader.com/2011/04/25/respect-yourself-interview-with-the-web-sheriff/#ixzz1W5XNC02E Agadant (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Making Progress

Progress will come by taking one issue at a time, discussing it, creating consensus and then making changes to the article. In the above thread with the nebulous title "Balance" there are proposals and fragmented discussions about 1)Expanding the lead 2)Creating an "Operations" section 3)Adding text about clients and so on. I don't see this as productive. Can we handle one issue at a time and have a separate thread for each? I think this would be more productive. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Along those lines, I proposed presenting an operations section for comment and consensus. I'm not sure why that is not taking one issue at a time. Making progress will involve making improvements to the article to be a representative information source for readers about the company, not just continuing negative comments that involve suppressing any new information and never adding or improving any already present for clarification and for more interesting content and prose. The present article is poorly written and put together and I am trying to have time to check sourcing to see if it is accurate after the quick and plentiful deletions that took place Agadant (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That proposal is fine. Why not make a separate thread so it can be discussed as a single topic? That is my suggestion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I support this approach, and I'm sorry that my subsections were not clear enough. Full sections are fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific and as relates to this type of company, the title of the section should be Operating methods (as was originally proposed) and not Operations as I stated above. My error. Agadant (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Balance

Achieving a neutral tone and appropriate balance in an encyclopedia article is always a tricky task - even more so if the topic is somewhat contentiousness. Looking at the earlier version of this article I can see reasons for editing and pruning, though in going from that version to the current version something has been lost. In particular the lead has been cut back so far that it doesn't give an effective overview per WP:Lead. Agadant and I have worked together in the past on the Van Morrison article, and while we didn't always agree, I found Agadant to be a conscientious editor, and someone prepared to negotiate (see [7], [8] and [9]). Agadant has asked me to look into this issue as a neutral editor. Disputes and discussions are important elements in the progress of a Wikipedia article, as through the crucible of strong debate an article is hardened, and a fair balance is achieved. I feel that it is worth looking into achieving a balance between the previous version and the current one, and would be prepared to help in achieving that balance. I would ask though that all people involved concentrate on the issues and not on the editors. There has been too much personal comment which simply annoys people, brings in bad feelings and gets in the way of building the article. As far as I can see everyone here wishes to achieve the same thing - to get a fair, accurate and informative article on Web Sheriff. We can do that better and more comfortably by not commenting on other editors, just on the article itself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead

Current

Web Sheriff is an anti-piracy company based in the United Kingdom that provides intellectual property, copyright and privacy rights protection services. The company has been in operation since 2000, with founder John Giacobbi acting as managing director. It operates from two offices in the UK with a total work force of 20.

Previous

Web Sheriff is an international internet policing company based in the United Kingdom. Clients include record labels and musical artists, media organizations, newspapers, broadcasters, film companies and celebrities. The company acts for the rights of its clients against a wide range of media copyright infringement, privacy violations, trademark infringement and domain name squatting.

Known primarily for protecting unreleased music albums and movie films, it is most notable for policing blogs, BitTorrent trackers, file-sharing sites, YouTube, film-sharing sites and websites that host links to downloads of copyrighted music and film. Web Sheriff initially interacts by sending "take-down" notices to BitTorrent and other file-sharing sites. When interacting with bloggers and fan forums, a polite request is made for the copyrighted material to be removed, while providing the fans with free official tracks and clips from the artist and record label. The company has a unique approach to dealing with piracy of unreleased music which includes promotion of the upcoming media release through fan interest. According to the Los Angeles Times, Web Sheriff is a "leading advocate of the soft sell" in the anti-piracy industry.

Although most of the company's work relies heavily on the entertainment industry with enforcing copyright and new release protection, it handles all forms of illegal activity on the internet. The company has achieved a consistent success in helping to deliver highest ever chart placings or highest ever sales for many music clients, despite their albums leaking early.

Web Sheriff has been in operation since 2000, with founder John Giacobbi acting as managing director and Steve Orchard serving as chairman. It operates from two offices in the UK with a work team of 20 patrolling the web 24/7.

Merged

Web Sheriff is an anti-piracy company based in the United Kingdom that provides intellectual property, copyright and privacy rights protection services for a range of clients including record labels, musical artists, media organizations, and celebrities. Founded in 2000 by managing director John Giacobbi, it operates from two offices in the UK with a work force of 20.

Web Sheriff monitors various websites that host links to downloads of copyrighted music and film. It will send an immediate "take-down" notice to BitTorrent and other file-sharing sites, though prefers to send an initial polite request to blogs and fan forums for copyrighted material to be removed, offering free official promotional tracks and clips as replacement. According to the Los Angeles Times, Web Sheriff is a "leading advocate of the soft sell" in the anti-piracy industry.

Looking at the Description section, it may be that much of that could be used as the lead, and then go straight to the History section. Some of the important elements from the History section should also appear in the lead. And some of the responses from "fans" and other observers. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

The recently changed second paragraph in the lead, one made and posted without discussion, does not adequately describe the work of the company. The wording is not an improvement at all as it does not explain why the subject is interesting or notable and does not summarize the most important points. The previous one was more descriptive and I have added a referral to the recent changes in the company's operating methods. Agadant (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Services and operating methods

A section on operating methods seems very appropriate, and such a section could be restored and written informatively and neutrally. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything in this article should be 'restored' and proposed new content should be posted here first for discussion and consensus before being added to the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the grounds for your opinion, Keithbob? Is there a policy about this? Agadant (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a suggestion to achieve consensus and avoid edit warring on a contentious article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other comments

Reception is a better title than Fan reactions - some material from the previous In the media section might be considered for Reception. The previous article version had a Clients section. Much of the material from that has been condensed into the current History section. I'm not sure either approach works effectively and it would be worth looking into a different solution.

I feel that with everyone's positive assistance this article could be made into something very helpful and informative for the general reader. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"range of clients ..." is rather claiming the obvious - else we think readers will think it only has a single client? Not. All of paragraph 2 is worthless as being primarily commercial spam. All that is important is what the company is, not what it purports to do (already in the body of the article). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As a start towards making this article helpful and informative for the general reader, I think the 2 paragraphs SilkTork proposed so far, are neutrally worded and in compliance with WP:Lead: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. The comments are sourced to reliable sources speaking and should not be considered 'commercial spam', any more than information in any other article on Wiki, properly sourced and worded according to WP:MOS. As for range claiming the obvious: definition of range: "a variety of different things or activities" as in "including record labels, musical artists, media organizations, and celebrities." The present sparse 3 sentence lead does not comply with WP:Lead. Agadant (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It complies fine - it explains in the right level of detail what it does. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What complies fine? Agadant (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Collect. Thanks for your input. Can you clarify the problem with stating that the organisation deals with a range of clients? My understanding is that it does not just deal with musicians or record companies, but also with film companies and with celebrities, as well as other clients, such as newspapers. What specific problem do you see with giving such information? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Cameron Scot. Thanks also for giving your view. The more input we have the better balanced and informative the article will become. Could you expand a bit on your comment. Why do you feel the very short lead is adequate? What do you perceive will be the problem with developing the lead so it gives the sort of comprehensive overview suggested by WP:Lead? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Agadant. I note that the lead has been developed while there are still views opposed to its development. There is no rush in building the article, and it would be preferable to address concerns before implementing changes. It is OK to make suggested edits if objections have been met on the talkpage, and a reasonable time has passed with no further objections. If objections do continue, and there is a deadlock, then further outside opinions are sought. I would prefer that progress is made by consensus on the article, and am prepared to lock it if there is edit warring, so then edits can ONLY be made by consensus, even by an admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't meaning to be bold or contentious. I just had it in mind that everyone had left the dialogue as frequently happens here and had ultimate faith in your editing suggestions due to your experience as a reviewer of GA and FA articles. I do want to go over the sources and see if they still all match with the info and if I find some don't anymore, I'll change them but will write that up in the edit summary, unless you object, of course. Thanks, SilkTork. Agadant (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No we are all still here, don't worry that nobody will be watching. However, I don't have any problem with the current changes to the Lede as long as we don't try to get that promotional advert tone for clients rammed back into it or the original research and promotional inferences that plagued previous versions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@SilkTork: The first paragraph and last sentence of the Reception section do not belong there but should be included in an Operations section. I'll work on a new section to be included and post it here for your response and any changes you may suggest soon. This section would perhaps be the most informative and useful in the article, IMO. Agadant (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD the lead section should first describe the topic and then summarize the balance of the article. Your recent edit gives undue weight to a minor point in the article and includes a quote and source attribution giving even more undue weight and POV. While I agree the lead needs to be expanded, I disagree with the current version which is a merger of new and old. I see it as a step backward. I also don't agree with what appears to be Agadant's continued attempts to assert control over this article by recruiting a friendly editor. Should I recruit a friend also? Should other editors do the same?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead is just a beginning as the rest of the article needs to be developed before further can be added. I did not recruit a friend. SilkTork is a very unbiased , independent minded sysops and admin, who I asked to give an opinion and to let me know what his opinion was about the article that I had been main contributor on. His opinions were completely his own and not known to me until he posted them here. He was honest about his involvement here and is offering a completety third opinion to the discussion. That should be welcomed by all. I am the only contributor to this article with information and research. Everything else has just been deletionist. (which is very easy to do) You may disagree with some of my writing but you have no right to question what my intentions were as they are only the best for editorial purposes on an article. My writing and interest tend to be music related and yours tend to be on transcendental meditation. Both show niche interests but neither should be be attacked as COI or promotionial - just because our primary interests are related to the articles we spend time working on. Agadant (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The soft-touch approach is not undue weight as recent articles published by reliable sources have mainly concerned this more fan-friendly approach. Per Billboard: "Web Sheriff still searches the Web for unauthorized music files and then either issues takedown notices or threatens lawsuits on behalf of clients like Adele, Beyonce and Lady Gaga. But Giacobbi says such work accounts for less than half of the company's activity these days." This is besides The Los Angeles Times article and several other recent ones on this new approach by the company. This information is definitely of importance to the article. I realize you wouldn't have reason to know this but please WP:AGF. Let's don't suppress information from the article because we feel prejudice against the editors who want to contribute to building it and not just deleting it and calling all information and quotes from very reliable sources POV and undue weight.Agadant (talk)

Whatever your intentions, the bottom line is you recruited an editor/Admin who you thought would be supportive to your agenda, whatever that may be. Secondly, a reliable source is not a license to create undue weight which is what we have in the lead and which is what you have begun to create in other areas of the article with your recent re-additions of deleted content. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. I did not ask him to comment here. Only for his personal and honest opinion on whether the last version of the article, I had edited on was really as POV as was claimed by all of you. i said and I quote: "any honest viewpoints will be greatly appreciated as to what may be really out of line with the original version. You may be in complete agreement and think the short version is a fair one, in which case I would appreciate that opinion too. And confidentially between us too." I did not recruit him. But I do respect his opinion as he has much experience as an admin. and GA and FA reviewer. He is very independent and I know that from working with him before. That is why I asked him for his opinion as I knew it would be unbiased, but I did not recruit him. That was his decision but I respect it and you should too. Agadant (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've had my say and you've had yours. I'm sure SilkTork is a good editor and I welcome him and all the other editors here as collaborators in this endeavor. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration? Keithbob, how is it that you can make many changes to the article without discussion on the talkpage, whereas no one else can? Why the big hurry to get your changes in? Even a neutral editor has had to discuss proposed changes here. Some of the edits you have made here today are misrepresenting what the company does. I will go into detail when I have more time to go over your changes one by one. And also the lede was still to be worked on as it is to give a full overview of the article. The article is not completed. It was agreed, for one, that an operating methods section should be added. I was working on that (and said that I was here) and will put it up for review. Agadant (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

History section new information

In May 2011, when a Web Sheriff protected album, Born This Way, by Lady Gaga, leaked a week before release, fans were offered official material such as tracks and videos in return for not posting copies of it on sites. Web Sheriff reported that when a mailbox was set up for reporting leaks, tens of thousands of fans responded and sent in links to copies due to the fans' loyalty and bond to the artist. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14536664

Are there any constructive suggestions for improvements or changes to this write-up? Agadant (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This information below also belongs in the history section: Agadant (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick Bracegirdle with Chicane hired Web Sheriff in 2007 to prevent leaks from his album Somersault after selling his Ferrari and mortgaging his home to finance it. Chicane's 2003 album, Easy to Assemble was so widely pirated by a Russian counterfeiter alone, selling thousands of copies with a sleeve from a previous album with the title digitally removed, that it was never officially released. http://www.billboard.com/news/chicane-takes-self-financed-route-back-to-1003611679.story#/news/chicane-takes-self-financed-route-back-to-1003611679.story http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/frontier-lawmen-1050557.html

The link to the album goes to an entirely different band so you might want to find the correct one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, CS... fixed. (Collaboration is always helpful.) Agadant (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

How's it going?

I see edits being made, and there is some discussion taking place. Is progress being made? Any problems? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that all of my edits, which were attempts to more accurately represent the sources, and word the lead in a more encyclopedic tone have been undone by Agadant.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I give up. I'm out of here. I am leaving this article and its "problems" for others to solve. Have fun y'all!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

hmm... you called for collaboration, Keithbob... then hurriedly made changes to the article without discussion, collaboration or consensus. Your changes did not improve the article but dumbed it down to be lacking in any useful information and you did not read or else ignored the reliable sources that were in place. I accurately represented the sources and that is provided in detail below. Enclyclopedic tone can be strictly subjective and according to how each editor perceives the subject matter. And you for some unknown reason, want this article under-represented, IMO. Agadant (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Advert

' I agree with Keithbob - the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"'Drive-by tagging'" is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"

Could you be more specific? I meticulously wrote from the reliable sources about this company as it was presented in them. Why does this make the article an advert? This is exactly how Wiki articles are written. Please explain how the sources are not accurately represented? Please explain how the tone is not enclyclopedic? If you can not discuss this in detail than you should not put up the tag. Agadant (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post each specific change I made to Keithbob's quickly done edits (without consensus or discussion) but I did not want to insult everyone by acting like they wouldn't read the sources.

Lead: The company monitors various websites that host links to unauthorized downloads of copyrighted music and film. It will send an immediate "take-down" notice to BitTorrent and other file-sharing sites or threaten lawsuits on behalf of its clients.[1][5] The company reports that over half of its activities involve sending an initial polite request to blogs and fansites for copyrighted music to be removed, engaging with fans and offering free official promotional tracks and clips from the artist as replacement for the leaked material.[5][6]

(1) CNET source: Antipiracy firms patrol the Web looking for unauthorized copies of the music or movies they are hired to protect and must act fast when they do. Giacobbi's staff rushes to send a takedown notice to tracking sites like TorrentSpy and IsoHunt. These search engines don't host any copyright material but are often used by file sharers to track down pirated movies or songs they want.

(5) Billboard: "Web Sheriff still searches the Web for unauthorized music files and then either issues take- down notices or threatens lawsuits on behalf of clients like Adele, Beyoncé and Lady Gaga. But Gi- acobbi says such work accounts for less than half of the company’s activity these days. The kinder, gentler Web Sheriff also tries to establish a relationship with fan sites, blogs and other websites to provide them with music the artist has made avail- able for sharing, along with links to artists’ Facebook, YouTube and Myspace profiles, not to mention their official website. The idea, Giacobbi says, is to engage with an artist’s fans through the online resources where they congregate most and attempt to direct them to artist-friendly content in hopes they’ll leave the leaked stuff alone."

(6)MensHealth: "what we do differently is ask the bloggers to take the leak down, but then give them a couple of official, sanctioned songs or clips from the artist or label that they can listen to and post for free. It kind of turns a negative experience, the whole anti-piracy thing, into a much more positive one."

What specifically is written that is inaccurate according to the sources? Most of the lead was written by an admin. and Keithbob removed it without discussion even though he called for collaboration. I discussed every change either here or on the summary. Agadant (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes I made to Keithbob's changing of properly sourced material:

"disappear entirely from the internet."[4] The star's spokesman related that "Prince believes strongly that as an artist the music rights must remain with the artist and thus copyrights should be protected across the board." "Very few artists have ever taken this kind of action over their rights."[22]

Sources: (4) Rolling Stone: "in 2007, Prince went even further - attempting to scrub himself fro the Web entirely." Web Sheriff's most agressive policing was for Prince - who hired the company in 2007 with the idea of disappearing entirely from the internet." (22) The Times: "These are steps that the ever innovative Prince is taking to reclaim his art on the internet," a spokesman for the star said. "Prince believes strongly that as an artist the music rights must remain with the artist and thus copyrights should be protected across the board."Very few artists have ever taken this kind of action over their rights. Yet Prince has showed time and time again he is ready to challenge the system in new ways to put artists and music first."

Another revision I made to Keithbob's changing of properly sourced material:

RLSLOG, called one of the world's most popular release news sites, was taken offline in January 2009 through efforts by Web Sheriff. The site was shut down by complaints by Web Sheriff to its web site host and band width provider.[36][37]

Sources: (36)TorrentFreak: "RLSLOG, one of the world’s most popular release news sites, has been taken down following action by Web Sheriff. The site, which did not host any copyright material whatsoever, has been down for two days after the UK-based outfit issued complaints to the site’s host and the ir bandwidth provider. The site will return." (37)DMV: " the founder and operator of RLSLOG, told TorrentFreak he is looking for a new hosting company for the site, which was also taken offline last year following complaints from anti-piracy firm Web Sheriff."

Last Change I made and reliable sources:

The company uses proprietary software and web-crawler programmers to search the Internet.[7][11] It relies heavily on phone calls and relationship building instead of only on technology.[1] It does not illegally interfere or add bogus files but targets the persons running the sites.[12]

Sources: (7) Spokesman Review: "Web Sheriff does not use technical tools to interfere with a site or add bogus files to some sharing sites to discourage piracy, he added. Its primary method is identifying the people who run targeted music-sharing sites. (11)Fader: "Obviously we have our own proprietary software and web crawlers that crawl the web" (1)Cnet: Giacobbi's secret sauce is relying more on phone calls than automated systems to spit out takedown notices. The former music industry attorney said his company relies on relationship building more than technology. (12) Esquire: "we use web-crawler programmes"

I don't really expect an answer as that is not how it is done here... But if you can not address exactly what is wrong and very specifically than you can not expect me or anyone else to understand exactly why this article should be written any different than any other. I have written on a GA article by using text rewritten from reliable sources. In this case, I stuck as close as possible to the text to avoid this very issue. Agadant (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving past discussions of NPOV

A Bot was sent in today to archive past NPOV discussions Bot archiving. There has never before been Bot archiving on this article! It was most importantly once again hiding from immediate view the fact that this article was found to not be an advert in March, 2011 by HelloAnnyong.

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

I reverted it rightly as the editor who put this up before the board had done so with the premise that: "Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year..." Therefore those discussions should be right out there for all to see. It is an attempt to subvert a fair observance of what is going on here by any outside interested parties. I was reverted by Tarc here - WOW - in six minutes time, providing further evidence that the article has been unfairly singled out for special prejudiced treatment by a selective group of POV editors backed up by the NPOV Noticeboard - of all things. Agadant (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Last time I was only basing my judgment on whether or not the article is an advertisement in the traditional sense - stuff like "come use product X!" or whatever. I didn't take nearly as good a look at the content as I should have, and I really do apologize for that. (Also note that, since I last looked at the article, it's changed quite a bit.) I am allowed to change my opinion, you know, especially when a bunch of time has elapsed. If I was called on to talk about another 3O case I did from three years back and I had a different opinion of it now, that would most certainly be acceptable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Talk:Web_Sheriff/Archive_1#again:NPOV.3F Luísarfs (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an Archive link at the top of the page so one can browse it, and there is also a search box if that is easier. We archive talk pages here at the Wikipedia after a certain mount of time so as to not make the page overly lengthy and difficult to navigate. In this case, threads that had not received a comment since June were archived. Please stop making ever tiny issue with this page into some gargantuan war of epic, hysterical proportions. Honestly, if you pulled these kind of antics somewhere more hot-button and closely scrutinized, such as an article regarding Barack Obama or the Israeli-Palestine topic area, you most certainly would have been topic-banned by now. Cool your jets, calm down, and stop flying off the handle every time someone disagrees with an opinion of yours. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Every" opinion I say is disagreed with by "every" one of the "newly interested in this article" editors, who know nothing much about the company at all. What antics? You mean I don't have an opportunity to express myself without obscenities and yet others can say such things as that using the word "unique" in my editing is giving the company a blow job". Agadant (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I set up the archival bot; my edit summary was as follows: "there is a lot of discussion here to sift through, setting up an archival robot to move old discussions to the archives." I stand by that; 100k is a very long talk page and it makes navigation more difficult. However, I will take it back off until there is time to develop a consensus here.

Agadant, if you are finding yourself at odds with everyone else's opinion, shouldn't you look to yourself first rather than everyone else? No one appears to disagree with you (not saying they did not in the past) that advertising is not an issue here. However, extending this 3O to NPOV is clearly incorrect, because HelloAnnyong has stated that he agrees there are POV issues on this article. In any case, for the record I support using auto archival to move old discussions to the archives. VQuakr (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was put up on NPOV noticeboard by Gracefool stating: "reads like an advert." So it definitely is the issue as it was ruled to be not an advert by HelloAnnyong in March 2011. So why shouldn't I state that. It is not off topic due to the charge it was brought up on to NPOV. If there is a gang mentality of 100 to 1 against that doesn't make them right because they are the majority, it just means they are a team that has taken control and exerted power. I'm sure you and I both could come up with many examples of that off of WP. Agadant (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The post that i reverted by Luisarfs is actually a piece of editing by HelloAnnyong taken from the recently discussed archiving move. I actually was standing up for this move by Vquakr by reverting Luisarfs as he was lifting material verbatim out of the archive and another's comments at that... And then, Vquakr reverted and scolded me? Either we archive and leave it there or we don't. You can't have it both ways. Agadant (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But surely you can see the inconsistency in your rationale. In this same thread you have added a quote that supports your position. Then, when another editor adds another quote that contradicts your position (quoting the same editor no less), you remove it and claim the reason is to preserve the archive? Luísarfs's edit represented about 1% of the archive, and his intent was clearly not to restore archived threads. When you fight even the most trivial issues like this, it gives me concern that you are too emotionally invested in this article to work in a collaborative environment. VQuakr (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I never make a revert without a good reason. I pulled out that little part "before" the archive was done. "Only the ruling". Which should be quotable as it was a decision. He pulled out the entire quote by someone else as an archive thread "after" the archiving was done. But whatever and I am not fighting. Did I revert you? No. But I wrote what occurred for the record. And if you only knew what obstacles I have to overcome in the last few weeks besides Wiki editing, you would prob not believe all I have had to deal with. But the worst is over now. It amazes me that I should be said to be "emotionally involved" here when it is my work destroyed in short order by very "emotionally charged" editors who have called names and have ganged up and never had to explain their editing. But that's fine. I don't take it personally. How could I? You don't know me at all. And I have never said I was taking a break. Only for a few hours one day when I was really physically sick! Cheers! Agadant (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some issues that need to be discussed about the article. How much deleted content was actually not in compliance of NPOV? Not much, I think and much could have been improved on instead of deleting. It was a free for all for a while and there with no policies cited or talk page discussions. Very unfortunate all the way around. It could have been a productive cooperative effort and one that all that participated could have been proud to be a part of. Instead everyone involved has shown their worst behavior.The article and WP are the worst for it. I think we need to look more at The Million Dollar Homepage for comparison to 29 July article for similarities and with the goal of restoring material that was very much in compliance with WP policies and should be included with maybe only minor changes. Some of it definitely was very close to FA article in type of content. Agadant (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are now fighting with the archiving bot as well? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL no, I was talking to VQuakr, who said that he set up the Bot. Someone has to you know - it doesn't just appear by itself. I do no make "obscene" remarks to those I am commenting to like you do. You've got to read a little before you start on personal remarks to me when I am replying to someone else. Agadant (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is over 140 kB now, which is quite long for a talk page. Are there any objections to me restoring auto-archival? VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections, so I put the bot back up. Feel free to link to archived discussions rather than copying and pasting extended content if a previously discussed issue arises. Cheers! VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)