Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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.

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

• 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

(Initiated 17 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 11 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 79 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 76 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 76 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, much belatedly. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 2 June 2024) Appears to be going nowhere. Personally, I think no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal2701 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 6 days ago on 14 July 2024) Already has absurdly unwieldy number of comments. Needs an experienced closer who is familiar with copyright policy for files. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Closed the discussion. Note that I have edited Trump and adjacent articles before but should not be considered involved for this. Soni (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 31 May 2024) No new comments in a week, discussion open for several months.CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tom B (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 25 days ago on 25 June 2024) appears this can be closed. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tom B (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Yes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support. The ban was ridiculous and out of process. Eric Corbett 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Oppose: There were many diffs listed in the discussion showing infringements of WP:Sock puppetry here: [2] and also here [3] and here [4]. After concerns were first raised that there were infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user denied and said these accusations were done "falsely" [5]. 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 [6]. 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

I think we had at least four accounts acting his meatpuppets and edited his biography[7], [8], [9], [10]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• He tells: we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors [11]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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. [12]) -- that's why the Pedia sometimes blocks/bans. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Camper-mann adds promotional material and removes negative information from the Alex Konanykhin article [13]. Camper-mann continues to infringe rules against promotional editing (all related to Alexander Konanykhin), and is subsequently blocked for inserting advertising into Wikipedia [14]. 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 [15], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [16] [17]. 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 [18]. 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)[reply]

No, failing to give the full picture is to leave out the fact that the business policies have been modified when you say that "First he claims that he can't disclose for business reasons and then a few days later he claims he can disclose". If the business policies have been modified then this explains why he can now disclose. The same is true at Wikipedia. If there's a rule against vandalism then we can say that we can't vandalize. If this rule is repealed then we can now say that we can vandalize. That's not an example of us lying. That's an example of the policies that bind us changing. It would be presenting an incomplete picture to say "Look at these liars! One day they say they can't vandalize, then the next day they say they can! Something is fishy!" without mentioning the policy change. The same is apparently true in this case with AKonanykhin. -Thibbs (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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 [19], [20], [21], [22], exactly as they suppose to be as PR people. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• This seems to be more of the same behavior from the user. As documented above [23], 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 [24], 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 ([25]). 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• The original ban stated [26]:

"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"): [27], [28]. 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)[reply]

• Three points. (a) Yes, this is written in text of ban: all accounts (including current ones) should be disclosed. (b) Konanykhin said that they have a non-disclosure agreement not only with their clients, but also with "their" wikipedia editors [29] and that they currently have a number of editors here, rather than these old accounts (in his another statement too where he tells that their people stopped editing during the ban) (c) Making such non-disclosure agreement means creating a Cabal; and we know several cases when members such "teams" (even not bound by any agreements) were sanctioned by Arbcom in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original drafter of the ban language himself has stated he supports an unban in the above discussion. I believe that they would have the closest understanding of what the language was supposed to mean. A number of other users who supported the ban have changed their minds, so I am reasonably assured that these individuals have the right interpretation of the language. In addition, there was very little discussion of disclosing retroactively in the commentary that led to the ban, so I'm relatively convinced that your misinterpreting it. No retroactive disclosure was agreed upon by the community. That said, we can go round and round like this for weeks. On your other point Voceditenore, I would indeed like to hear from User:Eclipsed to see how his or her Wikipedia activities are related to this discussion and what they have to say about the things being said about him/her. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what drafter or anyone else tells. It only matters what was actually written in the ban, because that is what people voted for. My very best wishes (talk)

We're saying the same thing here, just from two different sides. I believe it is a stretch here to say the ban intended for retroactive disclosure, and that moving the goal posts doesn't help us deal with the problem at hand. I'm also saying, I guess, overall, that smacking away the hand that is being extended by the company in question and gaining the "upperhand" so to speak by actually seeing if what we fear exists (potentially attrocious editing) is not in our best interests either. I'd rather keep Keyser Söze in my grips while I can (no offense to the company/person described meant, I'm purely using an analogy). Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. 1. Retroactive disclosure to some extent may well be the incidental result of present and future disclosure, but present and future disclosure should occur, nonetheless. 2) Are there current claims that present/future disclosure cannot be made? If so, those should be rejected, as incompatible with the ban condition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing should stand in the way of present and future disclosure. Any claim that full disclosure post-unban is not possible due to potential retroactive disclosure would be a cause to reinstate said ban, if made. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jeremy112233... You want to know what role of User:Eclipsed is in all this? Read this posting he made to AN in November 2010, when this company was first brought to the noticeboard:

"Greetings! My name is David, and on Wikipedia my username is Eclipsed. I recently signed up as COO of the company named in this thread. My boss is Alex Konanykhin. I receive financial compensation for the work I do for this company. I would like to say more, but I feel to do so may be a violation the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING".

Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfect example what happens when political PR companies are working in Wikipedia. Eclipsed was a well-intended participant who contributed just fine since 2005. He was recruited in 2010 (based on his statement), which led to COI problems and finally his retirement from the project. This incident alone could be a reason for banning the company. What they do is bribery. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that same post that I linked Eclipsed claimed that he was already working as a free-lance paid editor here, but finding it hard to make a go of it until he met Konanykhin. If he is to be believed, he wasn't exactly corrupted by his current boss, although if you read the whole discussion (uncollapse the thread), several editors disputed the accuracy of his narrative. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Strange that there was a disclosure of COI on User:Eclipsed's edits instead of being done in secret. It's not all that relevant to the ban/unban discussion though I guess, as it is an example of disclosure that has already taken place and not of undisclosed contributions, in line with what we are demanding. We can use it in other ways though perhaps. Maybe as an example of how the company might have in the past been able to edit in the way we need them to, for those on the fence, or at least that sample size of edits I was talking about, in terms of the kinds of potential edits we are trying to ferret out. Good information. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a disorganized discussion because people commented and voted with regard to three different issues: (a) paid editing (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but better be declared), (b) WP:COI (editing in the area of your expertise, paid or not, is not necessarily COI), and (c) working on behalf of an external political PR/propaganda organization by multiple editors coordinated from the same center (potential improper coordination and WP:SOAP problems). I think (c) is the most serious issue that requires complete disclosure of all recent and current accounts used by all external organizations currently working in Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully respect your opinion, though I've heard almost nobody in the above thread describe anything like your option "c", and find it mildly bombastic--equating public relations people to propagandists and whatnot, or assuming that there are multiple tag teams of editors out there (no one has provided evidence of that). Your use of WP:SOAP is apt though; I would add that if any significant amount of unambiguously promotional material is found and deleted in association from the organization we're discussing, that there could be grounds for restrictions outside the language of the ban in any unban. I just don't see any such clear examples of such unambiguous promotional activity right now, which makes me concerned that we're imprinting our own worst fears on a phantom that may or may not have any of the organs we might be attributing to it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this whole discussion is purely academic. Even Jehochman does not believe these guys are going to respect Wikipedia rules. He tells in his opening statement: "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"'...My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• I'm fine with this. Might be a good way to go with all paid editing. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support Other paid editors, such as WWB, have used this method successfully. Steven Walling • talk 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support - every paid editor should indicate their allegiance otherwise it constitutes violation of WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

1. Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. Support I think this has already been agreed upon by the prior consensus, and by this one. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Clients' identities must be disclosed if disclosure is to have any value. Otherwise, what does this accomplish? The whole point of COI declarations is to put other editors on notice so they can apply additional scrutiny to your edits are they deem appropriate. A bare declaration that you've done some paid editing, for who knows whom and for who knows what, provides very little guidance, if any. In addition many editors (especially those with less experience than the ones patrolling this noticeboard) don't often look at other editors' user pages, so a COI disclosure on an article's talk page (such as a Template:connected contributor tag) would be much more effective. Moreover I see nothing wrong with requiring paid editors to disclose their client lists. This is not WP:OUTING. If they signed NDAs, well, that's their problem. And expecting them to follow a "paid editor honor code" is sheer folly, given the empirical evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   • Comment: I have a feeling, based on people's reactions, that the proposal isn't being read very carefully. The proposal isn't for full disclosure, but rather for partial disclosure. I'd like to see other editors weigh in not only on whether disclosure of paid editing is warranted but also whether disclosure of clients is warranted as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   • No, clients identities don't have to be disclosed. That's never been a thing, it's just many people wish it was (including you, it seems); it also borders on WP:OUTING to force it to happen, as you are expecting confidential information to be put into the open. If you see a spammy article from someone with an "I engage in paid editing" notice, then it's almost certain that they were paid for it, and that they need to be watched carefully. Since paid editing is not a policy violation, there is at present nothing more that can be done. At the end of a day, someone can be neutral or biased regardless of payment. Good, neutral pay editors should not be discouraged; those who act in a biased or policy-violating manner should be dealt with on those violations, not solely the issue of payment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Your proposal already goes beyond the strictures of WP policy, so by your logic here your proposal must be rejected as well. And yes, you're correct that my position is for paid editors to disclose their clients. No, this doesn't border on WP:OUTING. OUTING is about personal information that exposes the editor to harm, not about confidential information. And frankly I don't give two bits about confidentiality agreements entered into by parties who are subverting our project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Uh, I'm not sure if you've read the rubbish you've just written or not, but OUTING doesn't directly expose an editor to harm, and forcing people to disclose confidential information definitely COULD expose an editor to harm anyway. And again, you're buying into the myth that every single paid editor is bad, which is quite blatantly bullshit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment This does not appear to be the right place to discuss a policy proposal. As is the proposal seems ambiguous, ("but this bit isn't required"?) also disclosure for our readers (and editors) sake will need to be on the talk page of the affected article, in addition to the user page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   That's completely ignoring most of the proposal, which deliberately avoids the thorny issue of disclosing confidential information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose per unenforceable due to privacy policies of WMF. NE Ent 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   What privacy policies? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Requiring that sounds unworkable, but we could come up with some scheme to review and rank paid editors according to how much volunteer work they do, and urge uninvolved editors to take that into account when they decide who to work with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Slimvirgin here is the answer to your question above. It appears that WIkiExperts does not intend to follow the COI guideline, in that they do intend to edit pages directly as opposed to limiting themselves to suggesting content on Talk. The relevant quote is "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." I have posted the question directly to User:AKonanykhin; I will copy the reply here when it comes.Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the length of the thread has gotten to the point where the average editor will not invest the time to read it all and make a thoughtful comment. Could we get an uninvolved admin, please, to read this and record what the result is? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is indeed hard to read. There is a problem with there being 2 distinct questions 1) whether the 1st banning was improper (with many editors not commenting on this) and 2) whether Wiki-experts et al should be unbanned. There is also the problem that many editors expressed conditional support for unbanning, but the conditions vary and it's not clear whether any of the conditions have been met. These !votes will have to be read very carefully.

Due to the complexity of the proposal, I'll suggest that 3 univolved admins work on this, make separate counts and then compare notes. FWIW, on the 1st question, whether the 1st banning was improper, I count 16 saying it was proper and 10 saying it was improper. On the 2nd question, unbanning, I count 22 opposing unbanning, 13 conditionally supporting unbanning, and 21 supporting unbanning. Obviously the 13 conditional !votes are very important, but to the extent that the conditions aren't obviously met, I believe they should be counted as opposes. I don't claim that this is a perfect count, only that counting will be difficult and require more than 1 admin to do right. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For any observers, please bear in mind that the closing admins will not only count votes, but also weight them by quality of reason. If it comes down to a conditional unbanning, I request that the unbanning conditions be proposed to the subject, and that they have a chance to agree to them. There might be a disparity between what the subject agreed to already and what will be required. That may be due to the subject (understandably) not knowing the requirements. If the closing admins can make the unbanning conditions clear, that would be helpful. Thank you for your efforts. Jehochman ^Talk 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to unban this editor. Unless his outfit can prove that they are completely different from something like WikiPR, the outcome is going to be similar. Doc talk 07:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPR was creating low quality spam articles. I don't know what this editor did wrong because even after many requests, nobody has posted diffs showing evidence of wrongdoing. There's been guilt by association (a false impression that this group is the same as WikiPR), guilt by assumption (they are paid, they must be bad), and guilt by mass hysteria (OMG paid editing is so bad, let's ban somebody!!1!) but no actual evidence. It has been a shocking display of poor judgment by some of the participating editors and especially by the admin who closed the original discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc, I very much disagree with your point of view on this (the strength of the arguments to keep the ban are rather flimsy in my eyes and held by a minority of votes), but that is besides the point--it is not up to those involved in this discussion to decide on the state of consensus. I also highly disagree with @Smallbones, who is trying to use his misinterpretation of the banning language to whitewash the original intentions of those that voted in a support of unbanning. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose early closure The fact that many editors have expressed an opinion is no reason to short-circuit the normal process and close early. Right now there are 20 comments labeled "Oppose" (meaning oppose the unban, keep the ban) and 38 comments labeled "Support" (meaning support the unban, remove the ban). Of course such a rough count isn't at all definitive, but that just supports the need to wait the full 30 days and then have an experienced and uninvolved closer give us the final answer concerning consensus. There is only one valid reason to close early -- WP:SNOW -- and it does not apply here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the user has the right to have his appeal decided faster than 30 days. Nowhere has it been established that we must wait a certain amount of time. Moreover, as I said already, this thread has become very long and convoluted, and the flow of fresh opinions has dried to a trickle. There isn't much benefit to letting the same partisans argue their positions; this only makes the thread longer without providing further insights. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two editors immediately above clearly don't know the rules on the time required for a community ban. WP:CBAN says "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should be aware because I had a hand in drafting that rule. We've waited way, way longer than 24 hours. The 30 days is typical of an RfC, which this is not. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Informational note: I have asked User:AKonanykhin directly if WikiExperts intends to edit pages. I did that, because although he promised several times to abide by the COI guideline, he also wrote things that made it seem as though they do intend to directly edit articles, even though the guideline clearly and strongly discourages conflicted editors from doing so. Since the initial ban arose from their bluntly aggressive interpretation of our guidelines and policies in their favor, it seemed like an important question to get clarification on. The answer was a great example (to me) of avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. I re-asked and have not been answered yet. The brief dialogue is here. Would you like to wait for closure until there is a response? Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this might be an instance of violating our rules against the harassment of banned editors. Isn't stating that one will abide by all COI guidelines the same thing as stating you'll abide by each of them as they are being pointing out one by one :) In addition, giving your own personal context to rebuttals given by banned editors instead of allowing their words to stand on their own (and commenting after the fact) seems rather unsavoury to me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeremy112233 sorry you see this as unsavory. I am just trying to ascertain how User:AKonanykhin will interpret that - please recall that they said before, that they were abiding by WIkipedia's rules.... it was worth it to me at least, to find out what that means, now and in this case. AKonanykhin has replied to my question. The question and answer are copied below.

Hi AKonanykhin

You have said that WIkiExperts will abide by the COI guideline. That guideline reads, very clearly: "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."

Above, you wrote: "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." Based on this, it appears that WIkiExperts does intend to edit articles directly. So to avoid any confusion, would you please give a yes/no to this question: If unbanned, will WikiExperts directly edit articles? Also, if the answer is "yes" would you please explain how you square that with the very clear advice in the guideline? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog - We intend to follow COI Guidlines in its strictest sense, as a policy. There are any number of aspects of the Guidelines, and we will follow all of them. Would you mind posting my response to your question to the AN thread? AKonanykhin (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! However before I relay this to the board, would you please answer the question I asked above? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to provide a direct answer, I will be happy to copy your answer above but will include a note that I asked twice for a direct answer and didn't receive one. If your goal is to gain trust this is not a great approach... Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog - My response is that I will follow COI guidelines to the letter, abiding by all parts as if it is policy, as requested. That includes all parts of the guidelines, including the non-posting of material directly to the page if it can be in any way construed as controversial, and the alert of a COI to all such edits so that they can be reviewed by others if they so choose. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a bit more clear. So the COI guideline says that paid advocates (like WikiExperts) are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral". It sounds like you interpret "areas" narrowly. Let's say you had a client, Company X. It sounds like you would consider a neutral fact about Company X, like the date Company X was founded, as not being included in "areas", and you would indeed directly edit that kind of content in an article about Company X. On the other hand, it sounds like you would interpret some controversial activity of Company X to be within "areas" and therefore WikiExperts would not directly edit content about that controversial activity. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please clarify! Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no efforts to circumvent COI guidelines whatsoever, and our reading has often been more strict that those of others. A non-controversial fact would be pretty straightforward, such as having the founding date of a company and a New York Times article that states that date and no other article contradicting the date, which could be added in tandem with the Times article as a source. Apart from such exceptionally clear-cut facts, pretty much nothing is non-controversial, so we will be posting all other kinds of material to talk pages instead of direct editing, so that the material can be first reviewed by the community. AKonanykhin (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further explanation. Copying this to the discussion now. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jytdog - AKonanykhin has already given you the answer - he will abide by the COI policy. Quit trying to bait him into saying something that the policy does not say. The policy does not forbid editing. It's a suggestion. End of story. And you know that's true because you're trying to get him to specifically say what you want him to say instead of saying he will abide by the COI policy.--v/r - TP 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to WP:COI, "paid advocates" are only "discouraged" but not forbidden from direct editing any articles they want. This should not be a problem if they honestly disclose their COI, and more important, their work on behalf of an external propaganda organization. However, according to statements by AKonanykhin, they did not (and will not) disclose anything with respect to their recent and current editing and editors - for whatever reason no one here should care about. That's why I can not support lifting this ban.My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog - Glad to see the dialogue here now, no offence meant, just making sure we're following policy :) Good useful information here at the end of the day! Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disclosure of earlier edits. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have not contributed above, I might have the right to close, but if I were to now evaluate the consensus of the community -- and by consensus I do not mean agreement, which we do not have, but rather a settlement which most of us can live with--I would say that the consensus has a remarkable similarity to my own opinion. I therefore think it better just to summarize and recommendation.

1. We are not agreed whether it would be desirable to absolutely prohibit paid editing, but I think everyone is agreed that we have no way of preventing it.
2. We are all agreed that since it exists and we cannot prevent it, it needs to be controlled and carefully watched
3. We are generally agreed that self-identification of paid editors should be required, I think it therefore follows from our general policy on user accounts that this is required of each individual account.
4. We are not agreed on whether or not it is ever permissible for an editor to introduce a new article for which they are paid directly into mainspace, but we are generally agreed that this is permissible via AfC, and probably also in user space. We are generally agreed that the move to mainspace must be done by or with the approval of an uninvolved editor
5. We are essentially all agreed that this firm of editors have violated multiple rules in the past, having engaged in meatpuppetry and undeclared COI editing. We are essentially all agreed that they have used many tactics to try to deny this, and avoid complying with out plainly stated rules. I think there is general agreement that in such a situation Kudpung's ban was justified, whether or not it strictly complied with the usual way we place such bans.
6. We are not agreed on the likelihood that the firm will follow the rules in the future, or about their good faith in offering to do so. But I think we are generally agreed that they have at least made a clear offer to follow our rules in all respects without their customary quibbling.
7. I think we are agreed that in such situations we normally afford the user the opportunity of a final chance. I think most of us feel that it would be warranted here, though some are of the opinion that the likelihood of their actual success in following the rules is not very great. There are varying opinions of whether it would even be possible for them to follow the rules--whether the scrutiny that the articles would receive would accept the notability and freedom from promotionalism of their articles.
8. While I do not see how we can require the disclosure of previous edits, if they have made a contractual commitment to their customers. I think we are essentially all agreed that they must not use such a reason to avoid self-identification in the future, I suppose this implies they make sure their present and future customers realise this, and that they say so explicitly in their advertisements.
9. As comments, I note that (a) some self-identified paid editors have elsewhere expressed the opinion that there is not sufficient such business to maintain a company;s existence by article-writing alone--that there are insufficient customers that are actually notable and would be willing to pay a fair rate for a truly POV article, and (b) some established rule-following paid editors seem to want us to continue the ban, in order to avoid having the taint of this firm's unsuccessful attempts affect them. I hope we will continue to judge all cases individually.
10. I therefore suggest that we provisionally overturn the ban, requiring a commitment to follow all " bright-line" guidelines. In the case of a failure to self-identify, the ban will be replaced immediately and I see no reason for further appeals to be listened to for some time, After 6 months, the situation should be re-evaluated to see the effects of the self-identified editing. If there is the actual production of decent articles, the trial will be a success. If not, we can consider wether to simply continue under intense scrutiny, or to ban for the empirical reason that the COI of this particular group of paid editors prevents honest editing. In the later case, I do not know how we will prevent their re-emergence. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: with a question. Are brightline rules the same as COI guidelines? If so, then definitely support. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "Brightline" is a slogan that Jimmy Wales created that has been rejected by the community when attempts were made to make it part of Policy and Guidelines. So the two things are most certainly not synonymous. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I guess I'll have to look into brightlines more if it's different from what we were talking about. Regardless, I think DGG has done a great service here in trying to bring us all together instead of just firing off an immediate close that some might be upset with. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG made many valid points, and I obviously agree with them. He is very well familiar with the case as someone who fixed problems in article about Konanykhin. However, I simply do not see consensus to overturn this ban.My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I agree that Kudpung's reading of consensus for the ban was justified. However, the premise of the original ban proposal – which everyone's !vote was based upon – was that "(t)he 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". AKonanykhin agreed to the above stipulation eleven days ago – why are we still discussing this? DGG's point 10 handles the situation well and codifies future expectations. The ban should be lifted immediately per the wording of the original ban and if those opposing the unbanning feel they have a compelling argument, then they should propose a new, more draconian ban. Someone should close this ASAP. Mojoworker (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose I don't think there is consensus to unban them at this time. And in any case, I disagree with unbanning them without them identifying their previous articles/editors. I don't believe that agreements they put in place should matter when it comes to the general requirement of coming clean with bad past behavior before being unbanned. It creates a very poor precedent. If we are going to unban them, the exact conditions (editing articles allowed? AfC allowed? etc.) should be blindingly clear. I don't believe the unban proposal above is as clear as it would need to be. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right or wrong, the ban was worded as it was – including the terms for lifting the ban – and that wording was what everyone !voted upon. AKonanykhin has agreed to those terms. Why are we moving the goalposts? If the additional terms you're stipulating now had been specified in the original ban, it may well not have passed... Mojoworker (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to mean that they'd disclose all COI/paid editing, past and future. I agree it could be read either way, but as I said, we generally expect people to either clean up their messes or at least cop to them so others can try to fix whatever messes there are before we unban anyone... Hobit (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Get it over with already please - Although I maintain my view that there was no disruption, and that the ban was utterly invalid, Kudpung's closure of the other/previous/banning thread was valid. However, it explicitly stated "(t)he 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" - as the company has agreed to do this, then the ban cannot be maintained. Doing so is punitive, not preventative, and again, I make the comment that no disruption was occurring - the last disruption of any kind came several years ago. The fact that people are still grasping at straws and looking for any way to maintain the ban is disgraceful, and goes against all Wikipedia policies - none of which prohibit COI or paid editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - however I would add to the last point, a requirement that all WikiExperts user accounts be listed somewhere in one place, like User:AKonanykhin's user page, so that the community can easily audit WikiExpert's compliance with the conditions. Otherwise it seems to me that it will be very difficult to ensure compliance.Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a fair summary of the discussion. I find paid advocacy worrying, and we need stronger policies around it. I would be glad to see a policy that disallowed PR firms from editing articlespace altogether. And I don't think WikiExperts is particularly interested in improving the encyclopedia; they're focused on satisfying a marketing niche, helping companies advertise themselves. (Even if they namecheck the 5 pillars a lot in their self-presentation.)

However, given current policies and the language of the original ban, the proposal in point 10 seems reasonable, especially with Jytdog's addendum. That will give us a clearer understanding of how and where they work, and what the impact is; which can be reviewed in a few months, and will serve as a useful example for future discussions about this sort of editing. If we do want a permanent community ban -- for bad behavior, or because other related policies change -- it would be better to decide that separately, rather than to claim the original ban extends to this. – SJ +, on further reflection, 02:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) , 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the conditions of unban were not met. According to ban, "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". No, they did not agree to publicly disclose all their current and recent editing and editors because of their confidentiality agreement, as has been discussed above. If they did, where is this list? My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal isn't based on the unban conditions, it states the ban itself was wrong. Thus, there is no reason that those conditions be met. I'd like them to in the future, but it is not a prerequisite. KonveyorBelt 22:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only relevant question is this: do we have a consensus to unban? Obviously, we had a prolonged discussion about this, with numerous arguments "pro" and "contra", and AKonannykin making various statements. Therefore, the most relevant subsection is the last one with votes - here. In this subsection, I counted 6 votes to keep this ban, 5 votes to unban, and 1 vote with "qualified unban". Clearly, there was no consensus at the end of discussion, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were plenty of votes in both the section above and below that one. Why are you arguing that only that section should count here? Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not arguing that only one subsection should count. However, it is very common that during such long discussions (e.g. AfDs, RfCs) people change their views or receive additional information, which helps them to make more qualified judgement. Therefore, what people happens to realize at the end of discussion counts more, in my opinion. But whatever. I think this discussion is already dead horse, so let uninvolved admins to close or have it automatically archived in a couple of days. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I have no idea how many people who commented and voted decided to support AKonanykhin because they have friendly relations with various PR companies and other businesses operating on this site. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blindly accusing people of meatpuppeting will not advance this discussion. KonveyorBelt 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope this is not an attempt to re-vote everything? My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's what is going on here, I believe this is an attempt to find a solution for a question that won't go away by ignoring it. We need to know what to do moving forward now that the debate is winding down. Otherwise we'll just be arguing the same thing over and over again for weeks. The vote above is clear numerically, though the content of the arguments will be subject to the closing admin's judgement. I'm not one to dabble in subjectivity, so I would encourage anybody in the above string to recast their votes if they read all the oppose arguments and see their conditional votes as not being met in terms of their conditions. Short of that, we can't recast anything. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here? You already voted second time. You first voted to unban in the initial section, and then you voted to unban in this section. And you encourage everyone else "to recast their votes"? This is very interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to clarify this for you. This is a conversation about DGG's recommendation, an independent issue from the initial thread regarding the ban. In terms of my use of the term "recast", you are accusing people of being "duped" into conditional supports, and I'm saying that if anybody truly feels that way they should recast their votes (the original one, not placing a second one, obviously) themselves. Otherwise another person's thoughts on whether they really meant to support the ban or unban is irrelevant, so it is best to hear any changes of heart directly from the editors involved. I've seen none. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree about this. DGG (and I respect his opinion very much) suggested to close this discussion as removing the ban. That was perfectly fine. However, when new votes started to be collected in support of his proposal, this became a violation of WP:Consensus. Why? Because if this is closed as "unban" based on votes in the last sub-section, then opinions of numerous contributors who voted in three first subsections (only really relevant subsections) will be ignored. This is known in real life as disfranchisement.My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - we can be satisfied by whatever method of disclosure is effective. I suggest AKonanykhin publishes a list of all his paid editors, and that any time those editors participate at a talk page, they state that they are working on behalf of WikiExperts for [drop in name of end client], and then make their request. If they provide quality content, the community will review it and add to the encyclopedia as appropriate. If they provide a stream of garbage, this activity will be banned. If they don't make proper disclosures, they be discovered eventually and banned for a very long time, per WP:ROPE. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine per SJ and my prior comments. As long as there is no claim that present and future disclosure cannot occur, for any reason (even if it provides indirect evidence of the past). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to using this sub-section to re-vote. What should happen is simply a couple of uninvolved admins looking at the original thread/discussion about lifting the ban (three first sub-sections) and deciding if there is a consensus about this.My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has made an improper use of rollback here [31]. This rollback did not revert vandalism to the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, and therefore cannot be considered unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion above about "poking" bears, admins may care to review Talk:Anzac Mounted Division. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this matter is much bigger than an alleged illegal use of rollback. Among other things, it's a ridiculous ongoing edit war about whether we should write ANZAC or Anzac. The main editors involved are simply not engaging effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback aspect is trivial; it merely enables one to save a few seconds when reverting. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Illegal"? Which section of the Criminal Code was broken? You'll want to notify the legal team ... ES&L 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be more helpful to cut back on the snark and reply to the substance of the complaint. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No...it would probably be best if editors did not make legal accusations that do not exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone have a look at the illegal roll back? --Rskp (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how rollback abuse is not illegal?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that even a rollback or just a simple revert? I can't tell. Anyone?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that last question. Rollback of 4 edits. [32]--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a roll back. [[33]]. Your link is not to a roll back, it is to the last of a series of edits which added a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then...if yours was the rollback and the other editor just reverted...who is at fault for abusing their tools? Hmmmm. An explanation is now required.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Miller linked to the addition of a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is adding a full stop a roll back. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be snarking, I suppose becuase, I don't even have rollback privileges. What tha ...? Can someone focus on the illegal rollback linked in the first post of this discussion? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@North8000: The aspect is not trivial - per RBK, rollback is not to be used in situations like this.

I'm not quite sure how so many edits have been made under this header for irrelevant reasons. We know what RoslynSKP meant when they said illegal. There is no constructive reason to banter about the implication of legal action.

That being said, I'll raise this issue with Jim Sweeney. After that, I'll stop by that article's talk page. m.o.p 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad someone understands this. I am still waiting for an explanation as to where the actual rollback was, but I guess just not understanding is not an excuse for asking, but thanks. I'll just wait for my general sanctions to kick in over who I associate with on Wikipedia. Thanks you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: This is a rollback. m.o.p 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe you. Now... why does the history not say it was a rollback? The only such rollback the history shows (and I admit my ignorance on this) is the last edit by Rskp? I am not trying to be an ass. I guess I am just one by nature and just need an explanation as to why, from my view of the situation, I only see a single rollback being done and not by the accused editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: That's what a rollback looks like. You can tell due to it being marked minor, the text linking to Help:Reverting, and the layout of the edit summary. Also, RoslynSKP physically couldn't have performed a rollback, as they don't have the necessary privilege. m.o.p 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time this editor has abused rollback privileges. See here [34] --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as someone with rollback...if the editor abused it, take it away. Of that much...I will agree. But will not support using language that exaggerates the situation in any way. Thanks m.o.p!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh, and lacking a bit of good faith. Considering our community's diverse composition (amongst English-speaking peoples), it is geocentric to assume the context of ones prose, basing it on your norms alone. With so many soccer fans, and football too, as well as many other sports, "illegal use of" is nearly synonymous with "unsportsmanlike conduct" and proof that "illegal" is not exclusive to jurisprudence. Tighten up sir.—John Cline (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Third Transjordan attack [35] here for discussion and link to the first instance. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been dragging on across multiple articles relating to the Palestinian theatre of WW1 for about a year now (possibly longer). As one of the coordinators of the military history project I've commented in a few of the relevant discussions, but haven't used the admin tools given that I've had lots of interactions with the editors involved. My consistent perception of this dispute is that its RoslynSKP against the world: he or she has their preferred names for articles and units (which tend to be a bit old-fashioned, and don't take into account the fact that there are often different terms used for the same thing in this particular topic) and consistently takes a combative attitude to try to enforce this. Calling improper use of rollback "Illegal" is typical of RoslynSKP's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach - instead of trying to reach consensus through calm discussion, he or she routinely escalates disputes. The various editors RoslynSKP fights with are all in good standing, and often seem pretty fed up with dealing with them. As the archive box at the top of Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division shows, RoslynSKP has tried to move this article to a different name five times since January 2012 (including a move review request) - four of these attempts have been made since mid-September this year. While Jim shouldn't have used rollback here, it's not hard to see how such stubborn and disruptive behaviour would wear down other editors. The fact that RoslynSKP dismissed the results of all the move requests by saying that "these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet." a couple of days ago says it all really: this is not constructive conduct, and suggests a complete inability to drop the stick and move on over this issue. This thread appears to be an attempt to change the battleground and distract attention away from their prolonged disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick-D your link regarding the carpet does not work. --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while you're at it, could you please move Henry G. Chauvel back to Harry Chauvel for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just passing by ... Graham87 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick-D on this. My view is that failure to achieve a positive result on one battleground (repeated RMs) has resulted in a move to a new battleground. At this rate, this is going to end up at ARBCOM and some editors are going to wish they hadn't escalated this. To deter continuation of this behaviour, a boomerang is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with Nick-D's take on this. I had a few encounters with Rskp after I responded to a GOCE request for an article in the WWI scope. If the response I got from Rskp later is any example to go by, and judging by their behaviour at RM, then they have significant ownership issues with anything they edit. During the course of my copy edit of the article, they would systematically go back and effectively revert many of the changes I had made. Normally, that wouldn't be much of an issue as that's the nature of WP, but when the end result is more verbose and difficult to read than was afte the copy edit, it's moe than jus a little annoying. A later discussion on the material in the article, I posited an opinion, which was responded to in an unnecesarily dismissive fashion entirely non-conducive of a collegial environment. However, rather than edit war over it, I notified Jim Sweeney as he was a major contributor to the article and left it to them to hash it out. Crisco1942 subsequently protected the article to stop the ensuing edit war. This single interaction with Rskp soured my taste for future interactions and I have subsquently made a point of not taking up articles within the WWI scope that they've been involved in, which I find somewhat sad as I am Australian as they are. Rskp is a polific writer in WWI, particularly on the ANZAC contributions to the war effort and that is laudable, but their interactions with other editors is leaves much to be desired. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim Sweeney cut the Populations living on the battlefields subsection of the article after it had reached GA. Given that the article was about a wide stretch of territory I thought it was useful, but Jim Sweeney is a cutter. See also Occupation of the Jordan Valley, Capture of Damascus (1918). In one instance after only five hours he cut a quote because I hadn't got round to paraphrasing it. You have blinkers on. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment which Blackmane took exception to was made after I had suggested leaving the subsection so readers could make up their own minds about whether the "Populations living on the battlefields" subsection was relevant as the GA reviewer had not seen a problem. Blackmane wrote" I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance" and I wrote "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light." This comments were made here [36] when Jim Sweeney wanted the subsection cut. --Rskp (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp, but I am surprised to learn that this has been an ongoing problem for more than a year. I do think its time that this was escalated - by which I mean page protections and blocking - so the rest of us can work in peace. I agree with Peacemaker - this is gonna end up at arbcom sooner or later unless one or more of us man up and lay down the law such as it were. It's not pleasant (it never is) however that doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be done. And judging by this post, it needs to be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think people are starting to recognize the point of my first post (the one referred to as "snark"). The OP seems ot have a pretty serious history of problematic editing. In order to get his "preferred version" or at least one of his opponents potentially blocked, he used an inflammatory heading: "illegal use of...". This was designed to get immediate eyes, and immediate action in his favour. However, in doing so, he may have whipped out his giant AN boomerang. ES&L 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over several years, including quite a few disagreements, so I am hardly an uninvolved editor here. That said I fully endorse Nick-Ds cmts as an accurate, considered and remarkably restrained summary of her behaviour and I think this complaint needs to be considered in this context. Further scrutiny, and potentially sanction, is needed here. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I first interacted with Rskp quite about two years and tried to assist them to understand Wikipedia policies and generally help out. At first, I was very keen to help Rspk with their articles as I felt her work had the potential to go to featured status and wanted to help (I still think this, and I still want to help); however, because of the way in which Rskp has interacted with other editors, I have limited my involvement greatly over the past year because frankly working with them is not fun and quite stressful. A key part of working on Wikipedia is the ability to collaborate. That sometimes means compromising, accepting consensus (even when it goes against you), and moving on in the interests of progressing an article. It also means assuming good faith, maintaining a degree of friendliness and accepting that it isn't a case of "one editor against the world". I agree with Nick-D's summary, particularly in relation to WP:BATTLEGROUND. On a number of occasions I have witnessed this editor WP:EDITWARRING rather than seriously discussing the issues in a collaborative manner and attempting to gain consensus (for instance [37], [38], [39] as examples). When other editors attempt to discuss the issues, these attempts usually meet with frustration. If they disagree with Rskp, their talk page posts have on a number of occasions been dismissed as "personal attacks", at which point Rskp has refactored those editors' comments, essentially removing them for anyone to read (for instance this just today: [40]), and/or the intentions, actions or opinions of those in disagreement with Rskp are derided on Rskp's user page, which frankly borders on an attack page in my opinion. Further, efforts to come up with compromise solutions are greeted with responses using language that is not conducive to creating a collegiate editing environment. For instance, an attempt by myself to resolve one of the issues of contention on the Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division article (i.e. the issue of whether to use the term "Ottoman Empire" or "Turkey") is basically labelled as a conspiracy because a couple of editors happen to disagree with Rskp's interpretation. I will reiterate, I have no dog in that fight and frankly don't care what term is used, but I do want editors to stop constantly reverting and actually attempt to progress the article; that is what I would like to see from this whole episode across all the articles affected. Everyone take a step back, take a deep breath and find a way to collaborate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• AustralianRupert I am at a complete loss to understand your three links regarding attempting to gain consensus. They are in fact to other editors' reinstating Harry Chauvel twice and a change of file name, all of which stand. And your final link is to the personal attack made on the Talk:Anzac Mounted Division article which I identified as offensive and collapsed a couple of times. Then when reverted, I twice attempted to add the Remove Personal Attack tag, both of which have been cut. And remain cut. I thought when a personal attack was made on an editor, when I was insulted and disparaged, "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done" and so I took steps to cut the comments. I really don't understand you at all. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• AustralianRupert I am also completely at a loss regarding your comments considering the very good working relationship we have been enjoying during our editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), and there are many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully to improve articles and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rskp, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you called my intentions into question here: [41] I was trying to promote collaboration by seeking a compromise to one of the issues that had developed between you and Jim, but your "the lock step trio" comment essentially labels my efforts and anyone else's as being part of some conspiracy. That does not produce a collaborative editing environment and frankly, I took it to be a personal attack. I remain impressed with your articles, and the effort you have put into the Sinai-Palestine topic, but I remain concerned about your ability to collaborate. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AustralianRupert, you are right. That was not a well thought out comment on your contribution. I was unfortunately expressing my exasperation. For that I apologise to you. But really, it was the Ottoman Empire which was fighting during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. While I acknowledge that Turkey existed in the 13th century (I think) and was re-established after the war, but using Turkey during S&P can only be pejorative and POV. --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I appreciate your apology. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments On top of the snarking about the improper rollback, now I am being impinged, here on the Administrators' noticeboard. I thought this was supposed to be a place to go for resolution not to be subject to attacks. I have been amazed at the level of harrassment that I have been subject to during my editing of Wikipedia. I made one comment to do with the issue of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey here [42] In 1299 it might well have been the Turkish Empire, but the Anzac Mounted Division is about the First World War, when the country was the Ottoman Empire. Many english language publications refer to Turkey, its pejorative in this context, and POV. The fact that this was the second time the editor had made improper use of the rollback has gone completely unnoticed in the rush to impinge me. See here [43]. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the move of the Harry Chauvel article as soon as the Trove information was forthcoming, I immediately voted for a return to Harry Chauvel. I had been comparing Harry Chauvel with Edmund Allenby, Philip Chetwode et al and thought it was wrong to have him the only one with a nickname. The Trove survey alerted me to the extremely wide use of the name Harry Chauvel and my reaction was immediate here [44]--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the personal attack and my several attempts to collapse and then to add a REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS tag, these have all been undone. This is despite the comments being insulting. They disparaged me, and according to Wikipedia "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done". Why should I have to go to ANI what ever that is? Why is it not possible to add a personal attack tag without it being cut? This links to the final revert [45] Why is it not possible to collapse a personal attack?--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The issue of the Anzac Mounted Division attempts to move the article are clearly on holiday for two months.
• However, as the article itself has developed into a battleground for the names of the division, I thought it was important to add the sources for all those names, so readers could clearly evaluate the situation. However, using the British official historian for the first and second mentions has been repeatedly undone in what I am beginning to think of an an OWNERSHIP issue. See discussion here [46] Now I see that the links are to the Australian War Memorial Web Site and the War Diary. Given the limited use War Diaries can be used as sources, I would have thought the British official history of the campaign a better source for these two versions of the name of the division. Further the editor refused to accept that Powles book formed part of the official New Zealand history, repeatedly cutting it. Even when it is clear that its the third volume of the official history. See discussion here [47] On top of that the citation to the Australian War Memorial's copy of the Australian official history's contents page has been repeatedly mangled. See discussion here [48] The other editor was under a misconception that the link was to a particular page in the history and not to the contents page. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ownership. Given that these are among the few edits to the Anzac Mounted Division article that I have made, the amount of edit waring associated with them points very clearly to Ownership problems by the same editor who made the illegal rollback. But it appears any criticism of that editor is not to be heard. What about my work? What about all the articles that have been written or rewritten which have got to GA? Don't I have good standing? --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [49] for related edit warring discussion. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake. There has been no discussion about the edit warring at this link. Its only been mentioned once during the rollback discussion, and twice during Nick-D's unsubstantiated contribution. --Rskp (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There continues to be no discussion of Jim Sweeney's dubious reporting of an edit war. After pointing out the problems with the links that editor provided to substantiate the report, nothing has been done, except for linking it to this discussion, which has not dealt with the edit war element at all. Further I am still waiting for some form of, at the very least, recognition of the extremely dubious nature of the series of posts in this subsection of the Administrators' noticeboard. The unsubstantiated impinging of my reputation should not continue to be ignored. --Rskp (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "impugn". The header you added made it look like Nick-D was the misspeller. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that the ensuing commentary has taken this into the realm of an RFC/U. Perhaps it would be preferable to put a pause on further additional commentary and reserve it for the RFC/U that will probably be inevitable? Should this be wrapped up as "no consensus that rollback was abused"? Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna move the discussion to a new venue then leave a link behind so we can find the new location for the talk. That's all I ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand your negative comments, considering the very good working relationship I have been enjoying with AustralianRupert, during our collaborative editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia). And there are many, many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully, to improve articles, and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to participate in an RFCU. I have never worked with this person but the diffs and the discussion here bring to the unfortunate conclusion that there is a battleground attitude which must be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I feel that Jonathan.bluestein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be banned for reverting good faith edits at Haredi Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without adequate reasoning as explained at Talk:Haredi Judaism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). Thank you, -- -- -- 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan Bluestein here. These two users are both Haredi Jews. They have strongly biased opinions on matters relating to that page. User ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been serially deleting contents off that page for months now. The talk page is full of extremely long discussions in which ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to make up all sorts of excuses as to why additions I have made to the page are invalid and inappropriate. Over the last few months I have added over 70 (!) relevant sources to the segments I have edited in order to 'please' ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s demands. To no avail. Whenever I am not around, he takes the opportunity to delete any materials criticizing actions by the Haredim. The sources I have used are mostly from Israeli mainstream media, and relate mainly to two issues: 1. Military conscription of Haredi Jews. 2. Controversies related to Haredi actions against 'immodesty' shown in public in Israel. The debate at hand has been raised within Wikipedia's resolution center, but no resolution could be reached. Neither did asking for moderators to intervene helped in the past. I believe that the sole purpose of this request here is to eliminate my influence from that page, and with it to gain an opportunity to once and for all erase any trace of criticism towards Haredi populations. I wish to ask any moderators looking into the matter to read the wikipedia page being discussed first, and then thoroughly go through the long discussions on the talk page, to see the long history of our disagreements and how they were debated and resolved in the past. Thank you. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphens, you'll need to explain what you'd like to be done. Do you mean a siteban (i.e., Jonathan's not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all), or a topic ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit articles related to Haredi Judaism), or an interaction ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit pages you've been editing, and vice versa), or something else? Regardless of which one you mean, you absolutely must demonstrate extensive disruption by Jonathan; bans are a drastic solution that are only imposed when we've tried other solutions without the problem being resolved. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Jonathan.bluestein has limited editing experience. After all my "mentoring", he still does not "get it." I am sorry to say, I feel his continued edits are a blight on this page. As a "litmus test", I added his material to Orthodox Judaism and soon after it was removed by another editor who stated: "This is an interesting and potentially important section to add; however, as it is, it is full of OR and unsourced assertions, and is not balanced." Jonathan.bluestein has been trying to insert his Hodge-podge of undue, pov, unsourced, etc. etc. material for some months now. It is clear Jonathan.bluestein has had enough "warnings" about his editing style but continues to add text which violates policy. He may be sincere, but he does not seem capable of understanding what belongs where, if at all. He needs to be blocked from this page so it can be fixed and the tags removed. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is worth investigating some of the recent edits by Chesdovi to get a perspective on what is behind this ban proposal. I agree that some sources added by JBluestein are not usable, but Chesdovi is removing a good number of sources that *are* usable -- and also removing material on the basis of a clear ideological dislike for the message they convey. In that context, the ban proposal is merely an attempt to eliminate an ideological opponent. BTW, the post at 10:39 just above is a clear violation of WP:POINT, and in general there might be a call for WP:BOOMERANG here, at least for Chesdovi (not for hyphens, though) -- the POV-pushing is by no means limited to one "side". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Nomoskedasticity wishes to be seen as a neutral broker in this discussion? My foot. If Nomoskedasticity acknowledges "some" sources JB added as inappropriate, why has he never removed any? He is always seems very quick to remove or tweak to the intricacies of material only I have added, happy to leave this rest of the page full of bunkum. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that I wish to push my POV or "eliminate" an opposing ideology. My edits clearly demonstrate my attempt to edit neutrally. Nomoskedasticity has a real gall to even suggested I have a POV pushing problem. It is the edit's of J Blustein which are a genuine problem here, and it is him and Nomoskedasticity who are intent on blurring real editing issues by claiming the issue at hand is to do with pro/anti Haredi stances. This is unfair and offensive. Nomoskedasticity has not ever once highlighted JB's problematic edits, until his latest post, which is an obvious attempt to frame himself as neutral on this issue; how idiotic. In his latest edit on the page, Nomoskedasticity has re-added primary sources which have been discussed previously at talk. Yet Nomoskedasticity does not feel he needs to discuss the inclusion of these primary sources himself at talk, but re-adds blindly. Shameful. Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that among all the people who have been editing the page in recent months (including myself), Nomoskedasticity has been one of a few that maintained very decent and respectable neutrality. I fact, he did delete or have called for the deletion of a few of my sources, with sound arguments. Probably about 4-5 sources so far, and they're now gone. Weren't good enough... As for Chesdovi's other claims here - I find no reason to try and counter his claims. I sincerely believe that reading the page, talk page and the sources themselves would easily reveal who is the troublemaker among us. The admins are welcome to check out the facts and decide for themselves. I should add, as I have before in the dispute resolution discussions, that this issue and page would better be examined by someone versed in Israeli culture and Hebrew. All points of controversy relating to this page have to do with events in Israel from recent years, and most of the sources on the page in general are in Hebrew. The latter fact is because the vast majority of news reports, article, studies and literature about and relating to Ultra Orthodox Jews (Haredim) is written in Hebrew. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, if Nomoskedasticity modified some of your material, please can either he or yourself point me to where that occurred, because I do not remember this happening, and I have checked and cannot find when this happened. Hebrew sources – how helpful. JB adds reams of text cited to Hebrew sources. But why? JB obviously can converse in English. Hebrew sources are unhelpful, confusing and usually against guidelines. What has J Bluestein added to this page? Material about specific peculiarities of the Haredim and why are so loathed in Israel by ardent seculars like himself. That's all. That is the glaring POV issue which strikes me. He is a proud anti-Haredi activist in wiki and in real life. That’s okay and obviously, I am not against inclusion of such material, so long as it adheres to normal editing parameters. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, here's a sampling of what has been going on:
  • On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan deleted a sourced paragraph of Haredi Judaism without explanation. This unexplained deletion was reverted by User:Nomoskedasticity on 14:54, 24 July.
  • On 20:46, 29 July, User:Chesdovi changed "Lithania" to "Lithuania". On 01:19, 30 July, Jonathan changed it back to "Lithania".
  • On 20:21, 5 August, User:Black Kite changed "a Haredi men" to "Haredi men". On 04:05, 13 August, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men". On 10:31, 30 August, User:Leveni changed it to "a Haredi man". On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men".
  • On 16:02, 13 August, Chesdovi added tags "{{According to whom}}" & "{{Weasel-inline}}". On 19:36, 9 September, Chesdovi removed those tagged sentences altogether. On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan restored those sentences, but without the tags.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed the "Sabbath" (which links to the general concept of Sabbath) to "Shabbat" (links to the Jewish Sabbath). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "Sabbath" without explanation.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the phrases "even go as far" and "might prove" which do not seem very encyclopedic to me. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored both phrases without explanation.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the word "interestingly", classified as editorializing. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly" without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I removed "interestingly". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly".
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "There had been more extreme cases, too". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I disambiguated: [[Egged]] → [[Egged (company)]]. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "[[Egged]]".
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back" to: "required men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front and women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back." (The fact that men are not allowed to enter from the back or to sit in the back is important because it shows that this is not an issue of Sexual discrimination, just separation between the genders.) On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed it back to "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back". On 10:42, 30 October, I restored "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" and added a reference to: "Kobre, Eytan (Dec/28/11). "In The Hot Seat". Mishpacha. Retrieved Oct/30/13. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)" On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan redeleted the words "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" together with the accompanying reference.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Orthodox and Secular Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" to "Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" (the source cited (חדשות 2 - בקרוב: רחבה משותפת לגברים ולנשים בכותל) actually says that 'Neshot Hakotel' is comprised of Reform women). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "A group of Orthodox and Secular Jewish women" without explanation.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Male, Female and Mixed" to "male, female and mixed". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "Male, Female and Mixed".
  • On 01:29, 28 October, I removed the reference to A news report (March 2013) of how one female drummer and one female singer were forced to cancel their participation in a municipal music festival in Jerusalem because of Haredi demands which is unrelated to "the show of exposed arms and legs", as discussed on Talk:Haredi Judaism#Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the reference.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I added links to Derekh Eretz Rabbah פרק א and Nedarim 20a. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan removed those links without explanation.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I removed 9 references unrelated to, but lumped together under the banner of 'immodest' women, and thus causing a mess out of the article, as discussed at Talk:Haredi Judaism#Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored all 9 references. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the 9 references. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored 7 of the 9 references, and replaced the other 2 with duplicates of the existing references.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "On March 2013" to "In March 2013". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "On March 2013".
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines" (n-dash) to "'Mehadrin' buses — bus lines" (m-dash). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash. On 10:42, 30 October, I restored the m-dash. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "The cause for the existence of 'Mehadrin' buses was, to begin with, the wishes of many Haredi communities to further set men and women physically apart, for the same reasons and rational that called for 'modest' female display in public". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
  • On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed " mainstream rabbis " to "mainstream Rabbis ". On 10:42, 30 October, I changed it back to "mainstream rabbis". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "mainstream Rabbis".
  • On 10:42, 30 October, I changed "have been known to censor pictures" to "have censored pictures". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "have been known to censor pictures" without explanation.
• If think that will have to be enough for now, as I'm running out of time. -- -- -- 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first diff hyphen produces is a good example of how Nomoskedasticity is happy to add superfluous material to this page. On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan indeed deleted a sourced paragraph, but he merged it into the text he added in his next edit. This was over-sighted by Nomoskedasticity who carelessly re-added the exact same paragraph on 14:54, 24 July, making it appear twice in the article!! This is of course of no consequence for Nomoskedasticity who seemingly likes to add unnecessary duplication here. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Chesdovi and -- -- -- failed to include my answers and explanations for the above-mentioned issues, which were addressed and appear on the talk page. They only put here a part of the discussion - the part representing their writings and opinions. The full-length discussions from the last few days are found here. At this link are the lengthy explanations for my edits and additions, which both users have claimed 'did not exist'. I wish to again stress the fact that in my opinion, in order to understand what has been going on with that page, it's best that one takes the time to read the entire talk page. Then one could see that most of the issues at hand had already been discussed over and over again, countless times. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a more personal note, I am not an "anti-Haredi activist" as Chesdovi suggested here, and have never claimed to be one. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, you stated above that Nomo deleted about 4-5 of your sources. Please show me which ones. Or was it an oversight? Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall it happened, but I couldn't find it being discussed on the talk page. Perhaps he explained it in one of his edits, or perhaps I was wrong. It doesn't really matter and has no relevance to your claim that I should be banned. You are merely trying to point out that myself and that user are somehow united under an anti-Haredi cause. Which is funny, considering you and user -- -- -- are both Haredim, and have very distinct political agendas about that page, which you have been promoting with sincere cooperation. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim which cannot be supported. Pretty much sums up the additions you have littered this page with: Sources which do not support the text…. Neither do you have the courage to admit your error: "seems, perhaps, doesn't really matter." Well, the poor additions you continue to add to this page do matter. That’s what this report is about - whether what you add matters – and mark my words, it does. Nomo does tend to have an air of neutrality about her, but the problem is, her efforts at balancing this page are, well, unbalanced. They have not once focused on the material you have added. But my goodness, to give the impression that Haredi men only get violent if a women is "scantily" dressed was taking it too far… They have to be dressed in what is "deemed" immodest, i.e. midriffs would probably pass, right Nomo? I mean that is pretty much in the mainstream nowadays. "Scantily" would have to mean walking down the street clad in a bikini and trunks. Clarification of that fact was imperative, but nothing Jonathan added needs attention? "Decent and respectable neutrality" indeed. Having noticed you have just re-added a copy-vio youtube clip, I really suggest that you leave this page alone and use you time more productively by attending a protest or parliamentary meeting. There you can say all you like without having the bother of finding RS to back you up.... (Please see Re-addition of primary sources.) Chesdovi (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's always the same. You claim something I added is wrong, misinterpreted, not suitable for the page, etc. I answer in length and provide 1-10 additional sources. You ignore the sources and raise another claim... and so forth. Luckily for the editors, the talk page is pretty clear about who has the sources supporting the truth, and who isn't. Any native Hebrew speaker would laugh at most of your arguments. But since you're so keen on criticizing the use of Hebrew sources, in the future I will make sure to bring on dozens more in English for your pleasure, stating the same things and supporting the same claims. Your criticism has caused the number of sources you don't like on that page to rise by the dozens (I gather I added at least 50 sources over the last few months, from many different books and websites). How many hundreds of sources more should I include? Would you like me to cover with at least 1-3 sources for every single sentence I added to the article so far? That might actually be possible. There's plenty of news, articles and literature about the Haredim... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think 1-3 sources for every single sentence separately is much better than 17 sources for 1 sentence but which refer not necessarily to that sentence, but to different (albeit similar) issues discussed elsewhere throughout the article. -- -- -- 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should beware of the list of edits that Hyphens listed above. Take the second one, for example:

• On 20:46, 29 July, User:Chesdovi changed "Lithania" to "Lithuania". On 01:19, 30 July, Jonathan changed it back to "Lithania".

Looking at the actual history shows that Chesdovi's edit made many changes, with 300 letters removed in total, and Jonathan's was a revert of a long sequence of Chesdovi's deletions, more than 12,000 letters altogether. The spelling of Lithuania is about the least significant issue in there, so why is it OK to mention only that? I'd like to know if there is a kind explanation, since the only one I can think of is that Hyphens deliberately misrepresented these edits to make Jonathan's edit look malicious. This suggests that Hyphen's behavior here and in the article should be scrutinized carefully. Zero^talk 02:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to demonstrate how carelessly Jonathan reverts good faith edits while putting back his previously deleted additions. If only this discussion will cause Jonathan to cease this careless behavior, then opening this discussion was somewhat worthwhile. He should at least learn how to use the Show changes button before saving.-- -- -- 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have an excuse for misrepresenting the evidence. I suggest that you be blocked for dishonesty. Zero^talk 08:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence was meant to show Jonathan's carelessness, and nothing else; and I honestly think that that is what the evidence shows. I didn't think that would be considered "misrepresenting" or "dishonesty". -- -- -- 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan here. I certainly admit to have been careless at times. In the beginning of my edit war with Chesdovi, he used to make many consecutive deletions. He still pursues this strategy. This meant that he'd make several edits in a row, each time deleting different things. That is, instead of making all the changes he wishes to make within a single edit. In the meanwhile and in-between his several deletions, many a time people made useful grammar and phrasing corrections to the article. To counter Chesdovi's deletions, I used to copy and re-paste a version of the page I have kept to myself beforehand (since he'd pick and choose to delete materials from different parts of the article at different times, and it was sometimes difficult to follow his deletions). But by undoing Chesdovi's deletions in this manner, it often occurred that I have accidentally deleted some useful additions and fixes that had been done to the page by others. That is why during the last month or so, whenever I made a new edit and undid Chesdovi's deletions, I tried to make sure that my own copy-and-paste version of the page included the additional changes that have been made since the deletions. I have also specified in all of my recent edits that I have kept these changes. Still, I did miss a few things here and there. When user -- -- -- complained about this on the talk page, though, I immediately agreed and returned the useful materials and phrasings which have been accidentally deleted (this can be seen here). In general, I have been in agreement with many suggestions and corrections made by Chesdovi and others on the talk page, while I cannot recall a single instance in which Chesdovi was in agreement with anything I added. He complained about the vast majority of my sources, and attempted to refute or dismiss almost all of them. Neither did he contribute much to the page - it was mostly me writing and adding sources, and he complaining about it and deleting my materials, as well as materials previously added by others. I wish to repeat once again - the history of the relevant talk page reveals the nature of this long argument to anyone willing to go through it. The banning request, in any case, appears inappropriate. Not only because of Chesdovi's personal agendas. Take a look at the talk page - user -- -- -- and I are negotiating things in a rather friendly and professional manner, devoid of personal attacks, and slowly find agreement on various matters. Why would he then ask for me to be banned?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to support a short block, at the moment. I can see Jonathan blanket reverting people without checking what they're doing, and essentially edit warring to do this. Bringing up an editor's ethnicity, and claiming that they must be biased as a result, is bang out of order. However, we've got mud-slinging left, right, and centre in here, and there may be justification for blocks on other users as well. As a result, I suggest this thread is closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke. With all due respect - may I inquire if you have read the facts beyond what has been posted on this thread? By that I mean - have you read the history of this dispute on the actual talk page? I ask because of the following facts, which are apparent on the talk page:

1. Chesdovi never denies being an Ultra-Orthodox Jew.

2. User -- -- -- identifies himself as one on his own user page.

3. Chesdovi has been serially accusing me for months as being an "Anti-Haredi Secular activist posting Anti-haredi government propaganda".

4. Chesdovi has been bulk-deleting my sources consistently without bothering to read them, claiming they are irrelevant, false, a form of anti-Haredi conspiracy, etc. Then, after I have explained in length on the talk page why they are relevant, he'd delete them again.

5. Chesdovi, who can read Hebrew to some lesser extent (shown as he expressed a general vague understanding in what's in many of the Hebrew sources), serially pretends that the content within Hebrew sources is irrelevant to the page. This has forced me to translate massive amounts of content from the sources on the talk page to justify their relevance... which did not prevent Chesdovi from deleting them again afterwards with other excuses. User -- -- -- who also claims to be able to understand Heberew, has done similar things on a few occasions (made claims of irrelevance based on supposed understanding of source text to not be relevant to not be relevant to the page/paragraph).

6. Many of the topics discussed on the page, as well as the relevant sources, are what I've referred to as 'common knowledge' with regard to Jewish and Haredi religion/culture. Meaning - that the common Jew/Israeli knows these facts by default, as part of Jewish/Israeli education (for instance - in Israel, all Jews study the bible for 11 years straight in school and are tested on almost all of it, so they all know the general plot-lines and the meaning of famous verses). Therefore, stating some things about this culture/religion is akin to stating the cold war was primarily between Soviet and Western powers - sort of fact that you don't really have to argue about or thoroughly justify. Chesdovi, on the other hand, was very manipulative on the talk page, taking advantage of the fact that non-Jews aren't aware of many such things being 'common knowledge'. He then attacked many of my edits and sources with the claim that the interpretations for sayings in Hebrew (either in news sources or religious ones) are false, and that I have to prove somehow that such things actually mean what they say they are (basically accusing me of serially lying, since he knows I'm an Israeli and a native Hebrew speaker). Then, I would go out of my way to translate those things Chesdovi argued against, and bring more sources to support their proper interpretation. The result would always be that Chesdovi would claim that I'm still wrong, and delete my sources nonetheless. The best example for this, perhaps, is found on this part of the talk page. Chesdobi argued against a common and well-accepted interpretation of a verse from the Book of Numbers (15:39: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם"). I quoted this verse as relevant to the page, because that verse is, in my opinion, the source for prohibition in Haredi society for Haredi men to look at 'immodest' women. Chesdovi claimed I completely misinterpreted the verse, and a call to prove my claims was also subsequently made by another user. I then brought forth the following sources in Hebrew to prove my claim^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}, and also this one in English^[8]. These are all sources from Haredi websites, and some of them are quoting very famous and universally-accepted Rabbi authorities, such as Rashi and Maimonides, in support of what I have argued. Chesodvi completely ignored these sources, and replied as follows: "As has just been demonstrated, Jonathan has no idea what he is doing here. He needs to be blocked from this page asap".

I have taken the time to explain these issues here because I suspect that admins have not taken the time to read the talk page in length, as it is a long and an arduous task no doubt. Yet I gather that it would not be fair to consider my banning without being exposed to the whole story. I sincerely believe that reading the history of what has been going on the talk page of Haredi Judaism would reveal a different reality than presented here on this page. User Zero have already commented prior here that there seems to have been a manipulation in the presentation of facts with regard to my edits, and I agree with him. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that after all this time Jonathan still cannot grasp why primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia. Let me just reveal to him that the biblical injunction which forbids gazing lustfully at women is not learnt from the one which he insists he learnt in bible class. It is in fact primarily induced from Deuteronomy 23:10. And let him also be aware that there is no source in the classic Jewish texts that forbids men looking at women. The problem only arises when a man needs to recite a prayer in which case he cannot do so in the presence of certain areas of uncovered flesh. He claims to know everything, but in truth knows very little. This ignorance will not continue to feature on Wikipedia! In his latest limp attempt to provide sources for why men avert their eyes, he has managed to collect no less than 8 "sources". THEY ARE ALL INVALID! I fear for the Israeli bar! Let me proceed to demonstrate the problems, and this will be the last time I will do so:

To substantiate his claim:

"Haredim who live among secular citizens usually either ignore the way the latter are dressed, or in the case of Haredi men, even go as far as looking the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female"

He cited: "Origin of the rule of not looking at things which can cause sexual arousal is in the Book of numbers, in a verse stating: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם" (see: ספר במדבר, טו, לט)</ref>" By using a raw primary source, he in in fact using original research to substantiate the claim that men "look the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female" hence his use of quotations, for by his standards the women are not "overly exposed"! Let him just find a proper source which will back his claim without the need for quotations. He finds no problem with this bible verse as a source, but in an effort to placate me he provides the following:

1. "The very extensive Hebrew Wikipedia page discussing the matter, mentioning this verse as the source for the rule prohibiting to look at private parts"

The "source" in in fact Hebrew Wikipedia which cannot be used as source. HE HAS BEEN TOLD ABOUT THIS BUT STILL PERSISTS TO USE IT!!!!!

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

Yes, this is not to be used on page itself. This was put on the talk page for your reading pleasure, as it's a very well written source in Hebrew. No wonder you got upset about this one the most, as it says, and I quote: "מקור האיסור הכללי להרהור עבירה נדרש בחז"ל על סמך הנאמר בספר במדבר בסוף פרשת ציצית: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם". Which translates as: "The source for the general prohibition of pondering an offense (the offense of looking at private parts, mentioned in the title of that page) is..." the phrase Jonathan has been speaking of  :-) Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Explanation by Maimonides, linking this rule to prohibition of looking at 'matters of prostitution'"

He uses a text of Jewish law discussing the laws of Idol Worship. (He mistranslates the words "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות as 'matters of prostitution") But nowhere in this primary source does it mention men avert their eyes from women to prevent arousal. It is not discussing that but Idol worship. No wonder...

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

Really? Allow me to quote from this source: "ועל עניין זה הזהירה תורה, ונאמר בה "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, ואחרי עיניכם, אשר אתם זונים, אחריהם" (במדבר טו,לט)--כלומר לא יימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה, וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת. כך אמרו חכמים, "אחרי לבבכם", זו מינות; "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות". Translation: "And of this matter the Torah has warned, and it was said in it: "And you shall not go after your heart, and after your eyes, as you are whoring after them (in their footsteps). Meaning - each one of you may be pulled after his short-sighted thought, and mistakenly take his thought to be the truth. Thus said the wise: "After your hearts" - that is (means) sexuality, and "after your eyes" is prostitution (also whoring)". We hereby see that in this source, the interpretation of that sentence from the Book of Numbers is said to mean that looking after the heart's desires is pursuing sexuality (מיניות), and following the eye's desires is prostitution/whoring. The reader is therefore advised not to do so. That is pretty much the interpretation I had presented. Mind you, that is an interpretation by Maimonides - are you claiming him to not be a Jewish authority? Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jonathan, but מינות does not mean "sexuality" at all. (Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism#Re-addition of primary sources.) So you can see how we might get into problems when using primary sources. -- -- -- 10:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. "An article from a book in the Habad library explaining that the meaning of the sentence is that following the whims of the eyes and heart is like an act of prostitution"

This is a excerpt of a discourse, a primary source, which nowhere mentions that the verse is used as a reason why men avert their eyes from women.

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

Sorry. I seem to have mistakenly assumed that one some Jewish religious authority writes that some act is "like that of a whore", he meant that by default, it's something that you should avoid. Isn't this common sense?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. "An article with a quote by Rashi, explaining that this sentence means that the eyes and heart lure the eyes to make an offense, and therefore one should not look"

This source does even mention the word "women".

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

From the source: "Rashi says: ...the heart and eyes are spies for the body and pimp them into doing offenses (Jonathan: as in pimp of whores). The eye sees, and the heart covets, and the body (physically) acts upon the offenses". I find that this supports my claim and interpretation. It's pretty clear to any Jew what sort of "offenses" there are on matters of a combination of what the eyes can see and the heart desires. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. "This article from an Israeli Yeshiva explains that the meaning of the sentence is that the eyes and heart create lust and wanting by looking and thinking about something."

This article actually discusses the issue of reading heretical material. It contains the paragraph from Maimonides Jonathan brought above in source 2, which does not link women and the verse?!

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

This article adds more from [[Maimonides], following the previous quote: "When it says 'that is prostitution', he (the author) means - to continue (follow) after the lustful and materialistic desires, and occupy the thought with them at all times". This simply adds to what has been stated earlier. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. "Rabbi Bnayahu Bruner from mainstream Conservative Jewish website Kipa answering a question about this quote, and explaining it means that one should rule over man's inner lust, and avoid the direction in which his heart and eyes lure him"

Nowhere in this source does it mention women. Neither should we use a Conservative source to substantiate Haredi behaviour!

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

With all due respect for Haredi behaviour, Judaism does not solely belong to the Haredim, and there is also room for the opinions and interpretations of Secular, Reform and Conservative Jews. Many of their interpretations are, in any case, identical or very similar to those of Haredim, with the chief difference being the importance each stream gives to the words and commandments. An answer by a rabbi or either a Haredi or Conservative website would not normally include mentioning of sexual matters in an explicit way, because this is considered immodest. You know that well. Instead, as in other sources, Haredim and Conservative Jews discuss such matters using evasive language, speaking of these matters by referring to them using more polite words and terminologies... Which are nonetheless obvious to most Jews, as they are to you and me. Here's a translation of most of that answer: "that sentence (the one we're discussing) includes in it a saying of a moral and (moral) principle nature, which means that one should govern the lusts which are embedded within man; that the eyes and heart are "pimps of the offenses", as Chazal have said. And therefore the gist of the warning is against following the lusts of the heart, in case the eyes help them (these lusts) to come true in a substantial way. A man who is impressed by what his eyes see might end up in a state in which his eyes would drag him to a place he does not want to be in spiritually, and therefore it is for the best that one uses his brain any action one does". This, again, I find supportive of my claim. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. "An article confirming that this interpretation of the verse is the most common interpretation"

Again, no mention of women here.

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

This source states that the majority of those (earlier) rabbis who 'counted' the commandments (decided which was important and which wasn't) included the one found in this sentence to be an important and independent commandment. Then it is explained further that this majority opinion is detailed in the interpretations of Rashi and Maimonides which I've already quoted earlier. In other words - it seems that this article is suggesting that whatever these two rabbis said (and the article quotes what I quoted before), is the more common take on this verse. This strengthens my claim, mind you, and makes it more relevant. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. " http://m.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7906/jewish/Chapter-27.htm"

A primary source which just mentions "sinful thoughts". Not women.

— Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13

You know as well as I do that when Haredim talk of 'Sinful Thoughts', using that terminology, they almost always mean things related to women. This is ridiculous... I call for anyone who reads this who had ever seen an Ultra-orthodox Jew to ask him whether the term 'sinful thoughts' in Haredi and Conservative Judaism is related to immodest thoughts relating to women. The answer you'd get is: "Yes, most often it is a case in which a man is thinking immodest thoughts about a woman, and this is forbidden". This is a very integral part of Haredi society and education, and Chesdovi is taking advantage of the fact that many of the people reading this are non-Jews to pretend that this is not so. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of all these fake "sources" is an attempt by Jonathan to back up his own assertions. These are not reliable sources by any means. He keeps filling with this article with similar rubbish. Why must we put up with this any longer. It has been going on far too long. He will just not listen. He has no understanding of what policy demands here. He has left this article a total and utter mess. Chesdovi (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just call sources from Maimonides and Rashi fake?  :-D Are you serious? They're some of the most well-known Jews to have ever lived, and considered to have been two of the greatest Rabbis who ever lived among pretty much all religious Jews. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, you still don't get it? Primary source does not mean that the author of the source is fake. It just cannot be used according to Wikipedia's standards. -- -- -- 10:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 13:28, 2 November, Jonathan:

• restored the reference to www.youpost.co.il, after being told not to use personal pages or blogs; Previous comment was added by User:-- -- --, 11:33, 3/Nov/13.

This isn't a personal blog. This was explained on the talk page. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• once again deleted the reference for requiring men to sit in the front; Previous comment was added by User:-- -- --, 11:33, 3/Nov/13.

That source was manipulative and trying to support the bus segregation with weasel words, not portraying things as they really are. I cannot believe that Chesdovi (and perhaps yourself) shows support of this bus segregation thing, like we're in 1950s America. The same source states, and I quote: "(the segregated buses and other Haredi-related events in Israeli) even prompting Hillary Clinton to remark that when things like this happen in Israel, it reminds her of Iran", but then goes to say Clinton doesn't know what she's talking about. Other fine quotes: "Nor will I speak on a practical level to the wisdom of seeking gender segregation on public transportation in Israel" - suggesting the author of the article fully supports bus segregation, and therefore is very, very biased. Another quote: "(the media attention of bus segregation in Israel is) information … intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question" - which points to the fact that the author of the article considers hundreds of news reports from many websites and newspapers to be forms of anti-Haredi propaganda/conspiracy (a claim which Chesdovi has sounded many times before). Another quote: "When that discussion takes place in the State of Israel, where degradation of women in the vaunted precincts of academia and the military is epidemic, and where there have been many highly public moral scandals like the one that once caused such humiliation to Madame Secretary Clinton herself, it is Torah Jews who hold the high ground and their secular counterparts who are left grasping for answers" - showing that the author is trying to sell his religious beliefs as a solution for the country's "immoral issues and problems". In short... the author of that article which I have deleted is extremely biased, and the article itself is big on justifying the male-female segregation in buses. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used that reference solely as a source to the claim that men are not allowed to sit in the back, as opposed to the 1950s America, when there was no such requirement concerning whites. It seems that when someone deletes a source you add, claiming that the source is biased, you revert that right away. But you have no problem deleting a source someone else added because the source is biased. -- -- -- 01:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• once again restored the hyphen in 'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines;
• restored the unnecessary space which I removed at 22:30, 30 October. Previous comment was added by User:-- -- --, 11:33, 3/Nov/13.

These were all by accident. I really don't mind about these changes - I just didn't notice them. Over the last few days, whenever you pointed to such a mistake, I hurried to correct it. This is documented on the talk page Why are you so eager to ban me, then?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]