Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Consensus is that the user subpage advertises/promotes a business. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Banner/Workpage28[edit]

The editor proposes to create and edit pages for remuneration, which is reasonably interpreted as a conflict of interest. Further this is an advertisement in Userspace, which is particularly worrying since it suggests that this sort of paid editing is normal and accepted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a space for paid editors to solicit their clients, and the proposed service is dubious at best under the current guidelines and policies. I think, given the drama that surrounds the issue of paid editing, that discussion stay focused on this page precisely, rather than drawing in a wider discussion of editing for pay. TeaDrinker (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has seven U1 deletions, and a number of incoming links dating from deleted versions. What is in the deleted versions?
If this page has value, it is for reference in ongoing policy discussion, such as at Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. Outside of that, if that, I think it does not look like a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Banner should be instructed to use a new number when creating a new page whenever the old page was deleted with links to it --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion as an advertisement for a service in userspace, but suggest delaying the actual deletion (perhaps with a template of some kind at the top?) while the policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy#Would this be illegal? is still active. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disregard the above. I have moved it to be with the other keep/delete comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy discussion has pretty well run its course, so if the consensus is for deletion there is no reason for a delay. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and POV-pushing. Teadrinker does not like paid editing at all, so everything related to it must be destroyed. Even when it is just a draft page. It shows a complete lack of respect to other opinions, especially now the debate is still running. And Guy Macon tries to push me to an essay that sounds like a complete hollow phrase. And gentlemen out of both camps: I use my draft pages the way I like it. You guys are way to itchy about it as this is just a draft. And I sincerely appreciate the fact that this MfD was started so secretly (not). The Banner talk 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Res ipsa loquitur. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with every point The Banner just made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, I think I have made my concerns regarding advertising in userspace clear, so I won't belabor the point. However I will note that this MfD was not started in secret, or at least was not intended to be. We discussed it on your talk page before it was begun, and I have always tried to be above board. My apologies if I misunderstood something. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And still you didn't have the decency to give a notification of the proposal for deletion. The Banner talk 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A notification was added to the page five minutes before the article was nominated,[1], and because the page was in your userspace, the notifications tool should have notified you, even assuming that you took the unusual step of removing pages in your userspace from your watchlist. See Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#How do notifications work?. If notifications are not working for you. please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:Notifications so the developers can look into it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize, that was an oversight on my part. It was certainly not intended as a deception. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Install Twinkle. It is easier to install and use Twinkle than to follow the nomination instructions, even for a single nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I support deletion as an advertisement for a service in userspace. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not advertising; relevant to Wikipedia; no real reason for deletion. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "I will accept legal computer equipment and software packages. My wish list at the moment contains..." not advertising? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Openness about ideas is punishable? The Banner talk 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. But openness about ideas in userspace is not allowed if the openness about ideas contains language that any reasonable person would construe as an offer to perform a service, rules under which the service will be provided, and a discussion about compensation. You could have written it to be less like an advertisement ("I think I can help with this!" "Just contact me for my details when you want to send equipment/software.") --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is no a place for personal shameless promotion. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it badly written and lending itself to extremes in interpretation but it has been 'advertised' on the No Paid Advocacy RfC talk page in order to have attention drawn to it. This is self-promotion of the most invidious nature in as much as it has already attracted the interest of others interested selling their skill-sets as a template to be developed. Allowing the existence of such a page to to be condoned sets an undesirable precedent. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "advertisement", as you call it, is and was hidden behind a noindex. And I have no clue how I can discuss my ideas about paid editing without writing it down. Having a good discussion in my local pub/restaurant might be a bit difficult due to distances and travel times. The Banner talk 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noindex was neutralised by bringing it into an RfC. You should have contacted senior editors and administrators querying how best to discuss your proposed advertisement of services. I believe you knew it would be quashed and, therefore, bypassed protocols intentionally. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My initial request, so that discussion could proceed, was that a notice be put at the top of the page noting that the page is not actually offering such a service, merely giving this as an example for discussion regarding the RfC. I think that is still an acceptable solution. I also applaud taking it to the RfC for further discussion and criticism. But without explaining that it is not an advertisement but an example for further discussion, to other users who see the page it will seem to be an advertisement (and as an advertisement on Wikipedia, it implies that such is compliant with our best practices, something that I do not think is true). It is this aspect that seems objectionable--it can not be a page written for discussion on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and an advertisement for an actual services on Wednesdays and Saturdays. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The user is being honest about a COI and editing in line with policy. Punishing the user for this is a violation of AGF and would see the Reward Board next in line for the same deletion argument. This is also premature and pointless since there is highly likely an oppose coming on the No Paid Advocacy discussion when it ends. Reading the discussion there, this seems much like an attempt to harass and bully The Banner. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reassurance it may provide, I did start this discussion in good faith, certainly not to bully or harass. You may also be interested to participate in the ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of the bounty board: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty_board_(2nd_nomination). If I have come off as a bully, then certainly apologies are in order. But I hold nothing personal against The Banner (in fact, I would hold him up as an exemplary editor), but whatever the grey areas raised by the current discussion on paid editing, I found his page to be already in violation of existing policy against adverts and the advice of the conflict of interest guideline. As such, a deletion discussion seemed necessary. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing any one person in particular TeaDrinker. I only came here because the discussion with The Banner looks like a concentrated attempt to force him/her off Wikipedia, when in actual fact he is deterring those with a hidden COI from editing themselves and offering to give them one shot to prove their notability. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jenova20, I think you are twisting the point of this MfD and turning it into a case of harassment. To be succinct, beyond contravening policy surrounding the use of userspaces in the first instance, The Banner linked it into an RfC and continued to use the RfC as a battleground. That would suggest that Good Faith/inadvertent violation ceased to apply long since. This workpage has spiked precedent interest and is continuing to draw far too much attention for the wrong reasons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence includes The Banner's purposeful mischaracterization of the nature of the page with comments like "I have no clue how I can discuss my ideas about paid editing without writing it down."

If he really wanted to "discuss his ideas", he could have written something like "I am thinking about offering the following service..." instead he wrote a direct appeal to his desired customers, explaining in detail the disadvantages of doing it in-house, saying "I can help with this!" and naming his price. That's advertising.

For those who think we are being unfair, what would you say to one of the ethical paid editors who asks why they were asked not to make direct paid edits and not to advertise on their user pages but The Banner is allowed to do both? How is that fair? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i was just thinking from the point of what's best for Wikipedia. In a few years, this will all look like playground squabbling anyway as the declining membership starts to attract more radical ideas. I foresee select editors paid by the Wikimedia foundation in future and editors with a strong COI ignored since they outnumber the regulars who play by the rules. When the rules are shaped by the community and the community is declining, the rules will more easily be shaped by those with different perspectives. Some of this might be good, the rest bad. We don't know yet, but The Banner is a necessary magnet for the COI editors since he is accountable and they are not. They will create multiple accounts to pay for their POV articles but if The Banner knows the rules and plays by them and offers to do their work for them, it's better from every angle. Let's not forget that Paid COI is not in breach of Wikipedia rules anyway. This argument is premature and quite frankly unnecessary. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? ~~Paid editor~~ Ethical sometime-COI editor User:CorporateM isn't accountable? News to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His version reads better than The Banners' does but I never said he wasn't accountable. I'd never heard of him before you bought him up. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this entire string is about, but I'll comment about the reference to accountability for which I was pinged. Declining editor participation is quite possibly the most important issue facing Wikipedia today and more participation from disinterested editors is probably the single best way to combat all sorts of COI editing. Frustrating COI participation (not just from marketing, but COI in general) is one of the many issues that contributes to the loss of productive editors. Various POV pushers can be more frustrating (more persistent) than marketers because they have unlimited time available.

Marketing participation that is done covertly escapes accountability, but accountability should be a big part of our message to marketers. Whether they disclose or not, or if they use the BrightLine or not, they are accountable for their actions and they should be able to vouch for their contributions as an honest communication. Our standards for an honest communication is defined as a good-faith effort to follow our rules and be genuinely neutral both in spirit and in letter. Contributions that are technically accurate, but intentionally differ to be self-serving is a form of gaming the system.

Anyways, I'm a little frustrated by people that keep labeling me as a "paid editor". I am sometimes an editor and sometimes a marketer and maintain both roles equally. Many POV pushes can be thoughtfully persuaded to abstain and I consider that to be my default approach to COIs I encounter in my volunteer editing in most cases, only encouraging them to donate images and point out errors. Those that will not abstain often end up being blocked and those that "get it" and understand the spirit of WP:COI should welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tantamount to forum shopping. It appears that the paid editing zealots are trying for lower-hanging fruit now that it's clear the larger proposals aren't going to fly. The Banner is being transparent and policy compliant about a process that surely is conducted not on those terms anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was my fear that the name-calling and intransigence that characterizes the paid editing discussions would spill over to this discussion. Although I do take a position in that discussion (as does everyone here) I suspect, perhaps it would be wise to consider the policies as they exist at present. Advertisements of all sorts have been deleted as a matter of course since the very early days of the project. This apparent advertisement violates that prohibition against advertising (WP:NOTPROMOTION is policy), and the service advertised is contrary to the advice of the conflict of interest guideline. Furthermore, the presence on the project, to anyone from the outside, would seem to constitute an endorsement of the legitimacy of the service, if not partnership with the service, none of which is true. Such a deletion is not without precedent, either. The earliest such an advertisement I can recall being deleted was the MyWikiBiz in 2006. I would urge you to consider this discussion on its merits, not the zeal of its partisans. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make some fair points. The Banner, could you clarify the intent of this page? If this is just a statement of your views on paid editing, or best practices thereof, might you be able to reword it in such a manner as to not resemble an advertisement? Do you intend to make a business of this? If so, might it not be better to host this on an external site? --BDD (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To start with: mr. Teadrinker is himself one of the partisans.

The intend of this page was to test the water with my ideas to see if I was not falling foul of the Guidelines when I decided to go live with it. It is not live now. That is why it is on a draft page and not on my user page. And that is why it is hidden behind a noindex-tag. This is a draft, a written down idea for discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a pity that a honest request for comments and discussion ended in this MfD. It gives the nasty taste of a gagging attempt...

And in all honesty: the chances of me starting with paid editing is by now almost zero percent. That it is not zero altogether is the work of the partisans who came down on me. I resist and despise their efforts and refuse to comply with them and their demands. On the other hand I realised that the idea could gave dramatic effects on the other things I do: Michelin restaurants. Without the partisans I would have discretely let the idea fade away in obscurity but they convinced me to fight it to prevent killing of any discussion in the future by gagging orders. The Banner talk 23:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that in our discussion prior to this MfD, I suggested you tag the page in such a way that it is clear that the page is not an advertisement. I still think that is an acceptable solution. The point is not to gag anyone, merely to comply with the policy we all follow. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While The Banner remains adamant that his/her 'intention' was to develop an example explicitly for the purpose of presenting it to the community for deliberation at a future date, even after initial concerns as to intent were expressed in the RfC, no form of disclaimer existed or exists on the page in question. Logic would dictate that, had this been simply been a case of not realising the ramifications of the page content as it stood and that this were an inadvertent misrepresentation of intent, The Banner would have recognised that it could be misconstrued and redressed it immediately by following advice given. The facts speak for themselves: the very section he/she began at the RfC states the antithesis of the claimed intent, reading, "I had just made up my mind about minor paid editing. I have put down my ideas..." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging the page with some sort of a disclaimer does seem like a good solution, The Banner. If you ever made a proper business out of this, you'd want to host it externally anyway. --BDD (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That he is being transparent does not change the fact that he uses wikipedia namespace for promotion of his business, which is a strictly no-no. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I refuse to obey this gagging order. The Banner talk 09:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how that works out for you. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Recreating page after MfD deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like no consensus - 5 for deletion and 4 against - with good reasons provided by both sides. Maybe it should be relisted or taken to WP:Deletion review. Peter James (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Peter James, this looks more like a case for The Banner to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. He/she has been running the gamut of Wikipedia policy and guidelines in order to get their way. For me, having been one of those who supported the deletion, knowing that this space is being watched leads me to feel that it is entering the territory of being a personal attack page. The same would apply to any of those who did not support keeping the page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 4 for and 4 against - SmokeyJoe mentioned that it could have some value for use in discussion. Maybe editors on both sides could drop the stick, allowing the page, which wasn't an attack, to exist. Peter James (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James, he/she had mirrored this discussion to the deleted workpage, made the statement about refusing to obey the 'gagging order' and THAT was the space being watched. That's not exactly something that could be construed to be a reasonable manner in which to appeal the outcome. The mirror has been removed since I made my observation, but it still adds up to attempts to game the system as well as forum shopping. It certainly brought you into the discussion, although I can't pretend to know which page caught your attention. At a guess, if you weren't aware of the fact that is was mirrored (i.e., in two places simultaneously which could be edited from either page), you were probably dragged in through the mirror. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at MFD soon after it was nominated and assumed it would be an obvious keep. I'd intended to return after a few days and if the result was still unclear add my rationale opposing deletion but forgot. Peter James (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]