User talk:Gigs/Archive 14

3O
G'day Gigs, thanks for your 3O at Pavle Djurisic. It's always hard to get wider editors to dip their oar in the turbulent waters of the Balkans. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The real thanks goes to the editors who are willing to work in contentious areas on a regular basis. I just pop in and try to help when I can, but as a tourist, I have the luxury of backing out.  Gigs (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not for improving
See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux where the owner of the sandbox seems to acknowledge that it was a soapbox (and has now voted delete as having achieved her aims). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on RFC/AAMC timeframe change?
Hey. Would you do me a favor and register an opinion on extending AAMC's timeframe? Last I knew you supported that in general, but there's been a lot of activity since then. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I went ahead and pushed out the timeframe. We're pretty clearly not done. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Added a question
Thanks for your answers to my questions so far. After going through your contributions, I found that I wanted to ask another question concerning notablity. Thank you for your patience with these. - jc37 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do realize that some of my personal opinions on notability standards should be are out of line with current practice.  But I guess if everyone always agreed with the status quo, consensus could never change.   I have no intentions of enforcing my opinions that I know go against current practices and consensus through administrative actions. Gigs (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pseudonym confusion
Hi Gigs,

I've seen you around for years, but for those years, I have been mistakenly assuming that you were User:Giggy. I never looked carefully until seeing you submit an RfA. Good luck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't the first to make that mistake. I've been here since before Giggy was a user, but he was much more active than I was in my early years.  From what I saw of him, we had very different opinions on many matters. Gigs (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks for putting yourself up for RFA. After your explanation to the question for which I initially was neutral, you won me over. I would definitely support you in the future. Happy editing. Go  Phightins  !  18:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your careful consideration. I don't think the Kyrsten Sinema hiccup would prevent me from supporting you at some point in the future as well. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion from someone who's been there: walk out in the sunshine, and look at the vistas for a few days. The annoyances do honestly pass. I wish you well : ) - jc37 18:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Gigs, I've just closed your RFA. I'm sorry it did not succeed; I still think you'd have made a fine admin... I hope this experience did not dishearten you and that you'll keep editing Wikipedia. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I wasn't just blowing smoke about the no big deal thing.  It is a little disheartening to see some of the careless opposes, but as I said in my nomination, getting the bit has never been a big goal of mine.  It would be nice to have some day just to be able to help in in more areas.  Thanks for closing it.  I didn't want to mess up the templates and look silly. Gigs (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Gigs, I just was headed over to your RfA to cast a !vote of ''Support. I don't agree with everything the candidate has written (about GLAM in particular), but he is a qualified candidate, and I was impressed by his role recently in helping to address a significant BLP issue.'' Since I see that the RfA has been closed, I've posted my comment here instead. Good luck with your future editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My opinion of GLAM has softened considerably since I have engaged more with some of the organizers.   There's some imprecision in our COI guidelines and terminology that I think exasperated the misunderstanding on both sides.   That was combined with a hasty generalization on my part of the city GLAM behavior to the more conservative GLAM projects and a little ignorance on my part of the internals of GLAM leading to my rash MfD vote and subsequent discussion.   I'll probably do RfA again in a few months if I can sustain a higher activity level so as to satisfy those who want to see big monthly edit counts.   Gigs (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to read of your decision to withdraw - although I think I can probably understand how you arrived there. And thanks for your response to my expanded comment, which I've only just read because I was away. All the best for next time. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:VP
Any problem with moving Village pump (policy) to Village pump (proposals)? I do not see it as a change to policy, but instead it seems more like a proposal? Apteva (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I put it there because it's going to take a policy (well, a guideline) and summarize it in a place that a lot of people are going to see. If you think it would be better to put on proposals, go ahead and move it. Gigs (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Wikiproject
A few times you've referred to WikiProject Nortel as a "sham" project. I did not make any comments on this in the deletion discussion, as since the project pages were mostly moribund, I didn't see much point in arguing about semantics. However, I don't believe it was created to be a front for Avaya pushing, and so don't believe this characterization is accurate. I suspect that although the creator was predominantly interested in Nortel's enterprise portfolio, the editor did have a general interest in Nortel, as other pages not directly related to the enterprise business had also been listed on the WikiProject Nortel page, and originally interest had been expressed in expanding the history section of the Nortel article. I believe the sale of the enterprise line to Avaya came after the project's creation, at which point the editor focused primarily on expanding coverage for Avaya products. The underlying motivations of course make no difference to the net effect, if indeed there was a push to eliminate coverage of competing products, but I think the project was more of a stillborn one (with no real discussion or co-ordination occurring on the project pages) than a sham. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I characterize it as a sham is because the founder had one blocked sockpuppet and others suspected but not blocked due to staleness, and all the members save one or two seem to be SPAs, sock, or meat puppets.  I do not believe that the project was created in good faith, but rather as a front to add legitimacy to apparently coordinated promotion of Avaya and Nortel and deletion of competitors.    If the founder had not been investigated previously as a sockpuppeteer with suspected socks blocked that exhibited much the same behavior as many of the Wikiproject members, then I would be less likely to call it a "sham".   You are free to disagree with my conclusion, but I think the evidence here strongly points to a bad faith motivation for its creation.   The fact that none of the active accounts involved have made any effort to challenge these assertions, while circumstantial and possibly coincidental, seems to indicate that he/she/they don't believe their actions were defensible. Gigs (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I recall, creation of the project predates the sale of Nortel's enterprise business to Avaya, and my interactions with the creator at the start of his editing career did not lead me to the conclusion that he started purely as a promoter of Nortel's enterprise products. Of course, it is quite possible intentions changed later on; I just wouldn't characterize the project's initial creation as having a bad faith motivation. isaacl (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will concede that it may have turned into something different from the original intention. Gigs (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was a member of WikiProject Nortel and received no notification regarding the deletion. I have absolutely no connection to Avaya and have made numerous edits on various pages where Avaya was incorrectly asserted as being the purchaser of Nortel in its entirety. If anything, I'm with you in trying to eliminate the spread of the Avaya infection. My main motivation behind joining WikiProject Nortel was to clean up the flow of the main Nortel page and make it more of an objective narrative of Nortel and its long, storied history. I find it questionable when a user comes out of the woodwork and deletes a project they weren't even a member of. The project was not a sham and I find it offensive that you've placed stereotypical labels on people you've had zero interaction with. There was a lot of good discussion on this project. Yes, some of it old, but some of us had genuine interest in cleaning up the Nortel page - something that's still required. The Avaya issue is separate and is not a Nortel issue, so why delete the Nortel project? Pjhansen (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I noted on the evidence page that your editing patterns seemed normal and that you only had a few edits to Nortel articles. I don't think you were involved with any promotional activity related to Avaya.  I will rename the page to something that does not imply the names listed there are guilty of anything. Gigs (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Move is done. The unusual Avaya/Nortel activity came to my attention after I participated in an AfD for the article for "Cisco ASA".  Something weird seemed to be happening and the more I dug the worse it looked.  I thank you for your constructive edits.  Gigs (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not answer your final question. The Nortel wikiproject seemed to be acting as a sort of coordination hub for much of the Avaya promotional activity, such as the "hit counter" charts tracking the viewership of Avaya articles.  Gigs (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you came here straight from the MfD, the evidence page I'm talking about is at User:Gigs/Avaya. If you are interested in monitoring for problematic edits related to Nortel/Avaya in the future, it will probably be of interest to you. Gigs (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the clarifications, thank you. I did not realize how far-reaching the Avaya issue was and appreciate you taking steps to ensure the Avaya promotional activity stops. I will certainly monitor the evidence page moving forward. Pjhansen (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
BTW, I think I will take a back-seat to the effort (even from the Talk page), but instead I would encourage you to ping me in any particular area that needs my input and I will only comment "per request" to avoid the appearance of lobbying or being overbearing. Best of luck - it really does need some clarity. Corporate 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WT:COI+
Hi Gigs, I want to make sure that you're aware of the discussion here. Ocassi is intending to propose this via an article in the Signpost and an RfC. He said he has invited 20 editors with an interest in the COI issue to review it, and as you've expressed an interest I want to make sure that includes you.

When I first encountered the proposal, it encouraged paid advocates to edit articles directly. I've edited it to remove that suggestion and bring it in line with the COI guideline. It has now been suggested that he should move it to his userspace to prevent edits he disagrees with (I don't know whether he intends to do this; it was a suggestion made on the talk page). I am finding that suggestion (and the whole approach) a little concerning, so I want to make sure there are fresh eyes from experienced Wikipedians on that page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see ...
WT:Paid advocacy. I think this is a big mistake. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Responded on the paid advocacy page and on my Talk page. RE the request for comment.  Corporate 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Question
Are you aware that the proponents of the Gibraltarpedia moratorium also wish to ban articles about Spain and Morocco? Do you support that? You might wish to consider this in relation to your vote to support a moratorium. Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This sort of biased canvassing is improper. Gigs (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a straightforward question. Are you aware of the scope, which wasn't fully disclosed by the RfC's author? Do you support that scope? Now that you are aware, does it make any difference to your vote? Prioryman (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The scope is Gibraltarpedia, not just the rock. I get it. Gigs (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, as long as you're fully informed. Prioryman (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading the thread I guess I can see your point in canvassing the supporters. I don't think anyone will change their mind though.  The problem isn't the geographical area, it's the contest generating such a large number of DYKs which makes it look like we care less about the damaging media coverage on the topic.  My concern is damage control, which is why I suggested such a short moratorium, just long enough to avoid the huge flurry of the contest submissions so close to the negative coverage. Gigs (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but what "huge flurry"? We've got a small number of articles awaiting review, and we've had just two articles on the Main Page in the last week. How is two articles in a week a "huge flurry"? Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "I would expect probably one or two nominations a day for a few weeks", you said this. We can quibble over how many of those might make it to the main page, but I think that around 100 nominations constitutes a "flurry". Gigs (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So far the rate seems to be quite a lot lower than I'd expected. There have been four nominations in the last week - say one every 2 days, roughly. Assuming they're being stimulated by the contest, which closes 8 weeks from today, that implies around 30 more nominations over the next 2 months if the current rate is sustained (which again is just an assumption). Is that really likely to overwhelm DYK? (Compare the mushroom articles; they've been running at up to 3 per day over the last month). Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be too upset if there's no consensus for the moratorium, which is the way it looks like it's heading. I warned them that it appeared community consensus was against a moratorium judging by the earlier discussions, and that a wider RfC would likely be a waste of time. I only revisited the issue because I saw that they were holding the RfC against my advisement.   I fully expect it's going to take an "act of Jimbo" if he really wants to stop them, since it doesn't appear that the community has the will. Gigs (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's comments have descended into idiocity on this issue, frankly, and his interventions have been unhelpful all round. It would be much better if he dedicated himself to schmoozing on the celebrity circuit and let those of us who are actually writing content get on with it. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Monmouth
Hi Gigs - the 2 million (c.) is about the newspaper coverage that Monmouth generated. No value was placed on the DYKs at all by the people who made the assessment. I agree that the media is a big issue. Some of this has come from describing the number people who see DYKs as millions and not the thousand who typically click on the average hook. You do realise that the £2m figure is a guess at the value of advertising. There was no millions to "trickle down" - the advertising wasn't done by wikipedia editors, but a specialist team of volunteers. There is a guide to the project if youre interested. Victuallers (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really care how they are using Wikipedia for marketing. The fact that they are using Wikipedia for marketing is a problem to me.  When a Wikiproject is getting an "excellence in marketing" award, that's likewise a problem. The town then bragging about the great "financial return" they are getting is just icing on the cake.  You can talk about media distortions and things we can all agree with, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that we allowed two towns to use Wikipedia for marketing purposes, and we have wound up with egg on our face as a result.


 * If the media is slamming us for something core to our mission like our belief in free content and open access, we should stand united against it. When the media is criticizing us for abandoning our mission to provide unbiased coverage, then we should act to remedy it. Gigs (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Lore
Per your notice here and lack of sufficient WP:RS, the article has been nominated for deletion. Thank you for the heads-up regarding the issue. Qworty (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

COI+
Hi Gigs, I responded to your comments on the COI+ talk page. Thanks for addressing those concerns. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 05:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid advocacy
Hi Gigs. I hope I am not over-stepping on the Paid Advocacy Talk page.

I didn't think we needed a separate rule for paid advocacy, just a single relatively short document that offers good advice and instructions for this particular group of editors. A lot of us just need to know how to deal with an attack page or ask for a factual correction.

Also, the jargon is only getting worse and I hope my suggestions might result in something PR people will understand ;-) Corporate 15:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. Since your COI is so well disclosed, I don't have a problem with you taking part in any of the conversations relating to the policy or guidelines.  We may disagree on the need for a separate policy, but that's OK. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest under "Expectations" we can put "editors are expected not to engage in paid advocacy." The document we link to should cover the subtleties and encourage editors to lock-out (ignore) editors engaging in it (after a warning). Just as we often put BRD in edit summaries, I could see us putting WP:Paid Advocacy in revert summaries and making it acceptable practice to lock-out COI editors trying to gain every inch they can for bias. This is mostly for direct edits, but could also be used as a warning for Wikilawyering.


 * I have a vested interest, because it would help me do right by Wikipedia if I could tell companies that we have this expectation and that there are repercussions. My participation is probably somewhat driven by a selfish desire for Wikipedia to give me the tools I need to do it better, but such a motivation is not necessarily in conflict with Wikipedia. Actually it makes me uniquely equipped to help.


 * Anyways, glad to hear I haven't over-stepped. I've dominated the conversation too much already, so I'm going to dial off until I'm called upon again and get back the PRSA article I'm working on. ;-)


 * Corporate 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Good on ya!
I just want to say that I fully endorse the deletion of the Nortel WikiProject. Good on you for the effort on your part. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Backend as a service
Hi Gigs, Thanks again for your help with Backend as a service. I posted a brief follow-up note over at COI/N for you with a couple other, very minor things, if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Best, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again Gigs, Just wanted to follow up with you about the possible wikilinks from other articles to Backend as a service that I posted over at COI/N. Have you had a chance to take a look at the pages and see if linking these pages to Backend as a service looks appropriate? Really appreciate your attention to this and all of your help! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I concede to your demands
However i challenge you to embrace your new purpose in life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomoaly (talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's OK if I screw it up, I can just go back in time again. Seriously though, stop vandalizing or you are going to get blocked very soon. Gigs (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hord's Ridge, Texas
Thanks for noticing the copyvio issue on Hord's Ridge, Texas. I changed the article into a stub that is no longer a copyvio, which is what I prefer to do when an article about a notable topic contains a copyvio. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Gigs (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments and a challenge for you:
Hi Gigs, As promised, I have some inputs for you.

In catching up with your profile, I see that you’ve been exerting a lot of effort providing commentary on the issue of COI. I’ve read some of this and agree that COI is a negative thing, but I aso believe that you are ignoring an obvious contradiction in your position and/or its actual application.

I would propose to you that you are focusing on one portion of COI issues while willfully enabling (maybe participating in) another. Also, while I’ve not chased through your edit history to look for COI behavior, I see that you are collaborating with editors who clearly exhibit COI of their own.

Here’s the basis of my argument: In the area of COI, I propose that you have moved from the role of interested commentator to that of an issue activist with a firmly-stated stake in influencing the guidelines and behaviors of others on Wikipedia. I would further suggest that once one moves into activism, he/she risks losing objectivity, while trying to “win” the argument around an issue of limited scope. And in doing so, one also risks losing sight of the idea that our primary goal here is to build an encyclopedia.

It is OK to exhibit strong beliefs, but when these beliefs get in the way of consistently rational and logical thought, they become a problem. As I said previously, I’ve not trolled your edit history, but I will point to the recent edits by editor Qworty (with whom I’ve seen you interacting) to the page for Dr. Philip Oxhorn as an example. If you remember that our primary goal here is to build an encyclopedia, you should be disturbed when an editor guts and PRODS a BLP of an academic that is clearly and unambiguously notable per 3 different (#s1,5,& 8) criteria of Notability_(academics).

In particular, [This Edit] shows Qworty removing a properly-sourced direct claim of notability that would have inconveniently contradicted the only purpose s/he was pursuing while editing the article: to destroy it. At the least, this editor was being intellectually dishonest in pursuing a goal that has nothing to do with making Wikipedia better. At the worst s/he fully understands the implication of this edit and is purposely trying to mislead an admin who will review the PROD and the entire Wikipedia community through this action. In either case, I hope you can be intellectually honest yourself and agree that this behavior is not acceptable.

So I leave you with a challenge: Either explain to me in rational terms why I should consider this ridiculous bit of editing to be appropriate. …Or… If you cannot do so, De-PROD the article yourself and take a few moments to explain to Qworty that this behavior is clearly a COI in itself and is not acceptable. Sincerely Celtechm (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I take issue with some of Qworty's tactics as well. I think it's a little extreme to gut an article of citations and then propose it for deletion on the grounds of lack of citations.  That said, such tactics don't generally accomplish very much anyway, since it's completely transparent in terms of what happened.  I don't see how they imply that Qworty has a COI, only that he is zealous (and sometimes maybe a little overzealous) in his removal of self-promotional content that has been inserted by people with a COI.  Tactics aside, I think his goals are worthy; we tolerate self-promotion far too often as a community.  The excessively lax notability standards for certain classes of people like academics and sports people are something I've often expressed my disagreement with; they allow such self-promotional articles to avoid deletion in many cases.


 * The foundation issued a statement a while back:


 * "Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects. --wmf"


 * On the subject of COI, I don't think I have any particular firmly staked position, other than I believe that one of the biggest problems facing the future of Wikipedia is the issue of people using it for the own ends in a way that corrupts the mission to provide an unbiased encyclopedia. I generally don't have a problem with paid editors that operate in the open, declaring their conflict of interest, and subjecting their edits to extra scrutiny by proposing them publicly for other editors to check for problems and potentially integrate.  I support elevating those best practices to policy.


 * You have avoided the issue of your eLance work in your comments. There's little point in denying that you are operating there.  Your voting patterns at AfD also strongly suggest that you either are, or are in communication with the paid editor who's AfDs you've commented on, so I don't think my SPI/Checkuser request is unfounded.  Gigs (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your somewhat-disappointing response. OK, to summarize your response: You give lip service to agreeing that the edit example I provided was “overzealous”, but I didn’t see any attempt to persuade me that it was proper; only platitudes that expressed your opinion that it was done with good intent in pursuit of a side goal you personally share. Further, you’ve taken no action to correct it or admonish the perpetrator of it because you believe the ends justify the means? (And maybe you’re afraid of losing an ally) So then, this has your stamp of approval... Even though you try to distance yourself from this action, you might just as well have done it yourself.


 * To my claim that you may be crossing into activism, I believe your comment: “I think his goals are worthy; we tolerate self-promotion far too often as a community. The excessively lax notability standards for certain classes of people like academics and sports people are something I've often expressed my disagreement with; they allow such self-promotional articles to avoid deletion in many cases.” …supports my point in your own words.


 * You appear to be disagreeing with the consensus opinions of the Wikipedia community and acting against the published guidelines as they now exist. Whether or not the guidelines for notability for academics are “excessively lax”, it is not up to me, or you, or any other single editor to decide. The mainspace is not the place for pursuing activism against guidelines. If you don’t like them, work to build consensus to change them. Until that happens though, each of us should follow the guidelines in good faith or be accused of COI.


 * I think that it would be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest for someone who has advocated so strongly against COI (as you have) to turn a blind eye to COI that happens to agree with his opinions on a specific subject. We can split hairs about semantics here, (as you did when trying to deflect this question in your response) but when your personal interest in changing policy comes before your interest in following current policy, it is a COI… I’m not sure what else to call it.


 * My personal opinion is that determining notability on Wikipedia is much like trying a case in court; if we don’t follow a universal set of rules, the process is fundamentally and irrevocably corrupted. A subject is either notable or it is not, and its inclusion should be based upon its own merits. Any other interpretation simply leaves too much room for individual bias to supersede objective evaluation.


 * If we begin evaluating the notability of a subject by our individual perceptions of how we think it got onto Wikipedia, (as I see you doing) rather than basing it on the relative merits of the subject, its references, and ultimately, the objective input of other editors if it comes to AFD, (Who, by the way, should be allowed to evaluate content without undue activist prompting in the AFD nomination), then we are effectively applying a sort of bigotry to Wikipedia and discounting the guidelines of notability to suit our own prejudices.


 * I won’t want to do that, and I hope you don’t either. Celtechm (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the only thing we consider at AfD. You have a contrived definition of COI if you believe that differences in opinion regarding what guidelines should be here at Wikipedia constitutes a COI.   Our guidelines are constantly being revised to reflect current practices, and our consensus does change.  I engaged with you in order to offer you a way to continue your paid editing in an open and transparent way.  If all you can do is attack the people who have tried to clean up the promotional mess you have created, then there may not be a place for your COI-driven editing here. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One comment - we often associate COI with promotionalims, but COI works both ways. Paid advocates at special interest groups can be just as damaging to Wikipedia's neutrality by defaming companies and many editors with an axe to grind have a COI that is just as damaging. Corporate 19:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that point is tangential to this conversation, but check out the "Intractable COI" section on WT:COI for a definition I formulated that generalizes the issue. Gigs (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply No. Notability is merely an example. To clarify, I called my concern "COI" and "activism"... maybe "disruptive editing" is a better description of when someone guts and PRODS an article on a clearly-notable subject, but I was engaging you for your part in things (Tacitly approving and defending this act), thinking that we were having rational discourse on the topic. For the record, I'm not attacking anyone here, only pointing out what I believe is some Cognitive_dissonance in your reasoning and asking you to re-examine the consistency of your position, which I found lacking. One may critique another's reasoning without engaging in ad hominem attacks, and I believe I did so in analyzing your position. I understand that you may not be willing to accept the truth in my comments. Good day. Celtechm (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

be my friend
I'am running out of friend s and i need more friends call me at [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.95.184 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'd like to let you know that Wikipedia is not a social network. Thank you. Go   Phightins  !  01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 24.125.95.184, I hope you did well with the hurricane. Not really interested in phone chat, but if you need anything here on Wikipedia you can use the  template to get someone to help you out, or leave me a message here. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material
I've replied to you on my talk page. Thanks for bringing this up! Qworty (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Aleksandra Taistra
Hello Gigs. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aleksandra Taistra, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''There is enough here to pass A7. The site linked (though you have to search it) shows her ranked #2 female in the world.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I wavered on whether to go A7 with it or not, since the claim in the article didn't sound very notable, but I'm not a specialist.  I mostly went A7 with it because it's been an unsourced BLP for 4 years, and no one has added anything to help establish notability until today. It looks like there's a better source in there now anyway, thanks. Gigs (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Intractable COI
A few thoughts:
 * contractual or otherwise, that, if fulfilled, <- wordiness
 * would impair can be expected to impair your ability <- we don't know for certain if it will
 * a marketing professional's contract obligation to serve a client's best interest

I know the third bullet I already brought up, but under the current language I do not have an intractable COI (but should). My clients sign my statement of ethics, which means they are actually contractually obligated to try to be neutral, serve Wikipedia's principles and avoid advocacy. If someone in contractually obligated to violate NPOV - for example if they only get paid by successfully censoring something - we wouldn't want them here at all.

However, we are in fact obligated to serve the client's best interest and should be able to tell the client that being honest, fair and neutral is in their best interest.

Just my two cents though, but wanted to explain the reasoning. I'm seriously happy someone finally just got bold and dug into it. Corporate 15:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I integrated everything except I left "would impair". I think "would impair" expresses that it is not necessarily impairing.  Thanks for your honesty here. Gigs (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I like that it emphasizes a relationship that creates an "obligation." I have a relationship with the Public Relations Society of America, but I don't feel an obligation to them on Wikipedia - if anything my contributions there have too much of a negative slant.


 * A few other nits/comments/ideas for purely editorial purposes:
 * "in a way that is compatible with our"
 * "directly edit content pages?"
 * "for related to such a relationship pages
 * These are just purely editorial suggestions. I was thinking pages might be more broad than articles, it would include policies and such. Content is fine too though, just brainstorming. Corporate 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pages" won't work, because that would include discussion pages. I think "content" is the right word there. We can other leave minor changes to wording for later. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh you're right. The same could be said for "content," which could include Talk. Maybe "article-space." I dunno - but yah, it can be flushed out later. Corporate 17:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs
Hi Gigs - let me know if you come across anymore unreferenced/poorly referenced BLPs of footballers - I'll try and source & improve, or nominate for deletion, as appropriate. GiantSnowman 15:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work my way through the list when I have time. Thanks, GiantSnowman 19:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I figured you wouldn't want to slog it all at once. That's cool.  I'm just glad you are willing to work on this. Gigs (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That barnstar made me chuckle, thanks. GiantSnowman 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added them to WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list - if you find amymore then feel free to add them so we can work through. GiantSnowman 20:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating the provider list from before
Hello Gigs,

I would like to request that the following provider list can return to Backend as a Service Wikipedia page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backend_as_a_service&oldid=518932885)

I feel that it's only fair that the providers that were once listed on the page should remain, particularly when they are removed on behalf of a fellow competitor.

If you would like me to submit a new version I will happily do so, I just wasn't sure of the protocol.

Thanks,

TomTradford2904 (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking instead of just doing it. That said, it's not really appropriate or good style to have a list of external links like the old article had.  See Elno #20.  We could add a redlink to your company in the sentence that lists "major" BaaS providers, but if that sentence starts to grow out of bounds we may have to trim it back to only providers that independent sources have called major (yes that may mean removing Kinvey as well).   Let me know your company name. Gigs (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem Gigs, I completely understand. My company name is Kumulos. We've featured on many external articles, most notably ReadWriteWeb (http://readwrite.com/2012/04/17/mobile-backend-as-a-service-ec)

Thanks for your reply,

Tradford2904 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Post on the talk page of the article so we can centralize this off my talk page. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Backend as a service follow-up
Hi Gigs, Thanks again for helping me with the Backend as a service article. Not long after you finished, a newly-registered account added the name of a firm that has recently entered the space to the list of "major providers" with a TechCrunch link. TechCrunch doesn't actually put them on the same level of the other names listed, and otherwise looks like a rewrite of this press release. And this morning I just noticed that the new account has been flagged as a suspected sock. Anyway, regardless the nature of that account, I don't believe the firm belongs in the list, and I wanted to bring it to your attention and see what you think. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If they really have 25 million end users that sounds major to me. I know that number can be easily gamed by not eliminating duplicates between different apps, but still. We might need to have a talk page conversation on the article talk about some objective criteria for "major", or just agree not to list any providers at all. Gigs (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the "25 million" claim doesn't mean what it might sound like. Note that they say they "launched" with 25 million users, which can't possibly be right. Kii recently repositioned themselves and entered the BaaS market, and is claiming legacy end users as BaaS users—i.e., the claim is in fact "there are 25 million users of apps that Kii worked with before we expanded into the BaaS market", and not that they have 25 million users of their Backend as a service product. The language in the press release seems to support this: "This move (launching a BaaS service) catapults Kii into position as the biggest player in the space serving 25M end-users with the cloud." These aren't users of their BaaS product, they're end users of apps that they've worked with in a different context.


 * I'm open to your judgement call on this, whether it be that Kii stays in the article, or that we have a conversation on the Talk page over at BaaS, but since I think the claim is misleading, I wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to take it to the talk page. I can't act as the sole mediator on this. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posted my concern about Kii over on the BaaS Talk page now. Sorry about getting you wrapped up in this—I didn't expect the article to be quite so lively! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)