Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 all. If anybody wants any of them let me know. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators


It is hard for me to imagine a more blatant WP:FAKEARTICLE violation than this. Deleted from article space after discussion here.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, WP:FAKEARTICLE:
 * User:Riceissa/Laura and John Arnold Foundation grants tables (Removed from article, with discussion)
 * User:Riceissa/Triplebyte (AfD)
 * User:Riceissa/The GiveWell Blog (No AfD, but COI issues and would clearly not survive an AfD)

And nominating the following as a likely fork of duplicate of Slate Star Codex based on the attempted use of the INDEX magic word in user space.
 * User:Riceissa/Slate Star Codex

The rest of this user's (and the rest of the ring's) user space needs to be reviewed. See Wikipedia_talk:User_pages and here for more background. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:VQuakr, Slate Star Codex was made 2 hours ago.


 * Please don't be a zealot when attacking user space. As for indexing, I'm not sure why Riceissa indexed his user pages, but as a member of this evil ring, who has been called a MEAT, a SOCK, among other things, and who has refrained from commenting on the ridiculous attacks on Riceissa and Vipul, I'm telling you that Riceissa had no malicious intent when indexing these user pages (or anything else this evil ring has done!!!). AFAIK, other members of the ring (including Vipul) didn't index their user pages. I did index User:Ethanbas, and I believe that is allowed by WP guidelines. Ethanbas (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I was not paid to comment on here, before anyone suggests that. Ethanbas (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:VQuakr, what about Nonidentity problem? Ricessa created that as a user draft, and didn't move it to main space probably because he doesn't like creating mainspace stubs, but *you* moved it from Ricessa's userspace to mainspace! Clearly you thought it was fine. Again, I don't know why Ricessa indexed his userpages, but I swear (as an evil MEAT and SOCK controlled by Riceissa) that he had no malicious intent. Since the discussion is undoubtedly going to be tied to the paid editors, I will also say that the SEO accusations are completely false, and the technology timelines accusations are completely false, and in fact *all* the accusations about how bad and evil we are, all these accusations are false. If you want to be critical of this "ring's" work, you should look at it from an inclusionist perspective, not a paid advocacy or whatever perspective. Sorry for being a little emotional right now; I took a break from WP because of all the accusations, and it's just hard for me to stay silent any longer.


 * Ethanbas (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, what about Nonidentity problem? Ricessa created that as a user draft, and didn't move it to main space probably because he doesn't like creating mainspace stubs, but *you* moved it from Ricessa's userspace to mainspace! Clearly you thought it was fine. Ethanbas (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really; the userspace article for that was created by the same editor (Riceissa), as well as indexed by him, just like the articles you're nominating here. Ethanbas (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? It isn't being considered for deletion in this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I added links to the previous relevant AfD's and discussions to give a little more background. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators and User:Riceissa/Laura and John Arnold Foundation grants tables. Not appropriate content for an article or a user page. If this is being used as the basis for making articles. it shouldn't be, because the net result of that would by a slew of promotional articles of the charities they sponsor. This is altogether regardless of the motives of the contributor(s), into which I am not going to inquire.  DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete User:Riceissa/Triplebyte. No better than prev. deleted version. Move to draft space  I'm not sure it should be an article, but it isn't an improper try at making one. I consider it too promotional  at present, but it might be capable of improvement.  It will have eventually to be judged on its merits at AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete User:Riceissa/The GiveWell Blog and User:Riceissa/Slate Star Codex. No chance at all of an article no matter how much it might be developed.No point in moving to draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying [the above three !votes] without any judgment about the general question of how to deal with this group of editors. That needs to be discussed, but a good first step is to examine the individual articles and drafts on their own merits.  DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see now I should have made what already had been AfD'd more clear. By any chance did you notice (recall, really, since you !voted there) the existence of WP:Articles for deletion/Triplebyte? VQuakr (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, so I guess it's delete on this also.  DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like Riceissa is keeping an article like Triplebyte in user space for him to work on later; maybe when there are more verifiable sources about it, Ricessa would write up something and publish it. The company is pretty notable I think, and there are more verifiable sources than half a year ago when the AfD happened. Why not just tell Riceissa to remove the indexing from his user pages? Ethanbas (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all. The additions of the "INDEX" code, , , , are clear indications that the intention is to host "articles" on userspace in violation of policy. Seriously, this is ban-worthy behavior. Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators and User:Riceissa/Laura and John Arnold Foundation grants tables - as stated above, this is inappropriate use of user page according to WP:UP User pages are administration pages in the User and User talk namespaces, and are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. Furthermore I would propose that if the articles in question would be best suited in Drafts where there is  no paid editing unless disclosed as per Conflict of interest Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.[6] In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.   ActiveListener95|  (˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ)    20:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * delete all am just gettiing started cleaning up this mess of paid advocacy editing. This stuff needs to go as already argued above. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all of these. Constant monitoring and removal of __INDEX__ shouldn't be necessary, especially when the user's reaction is this. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all and sanction the editor for a long history of undeclared, paid SEO-based editing. They very recently declared that they are being paid to edit articles but they've somehow forgotten to mention that they've been paid for this content too. Why are they still allowed to edit? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note The creator of these User pages has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. As a side note, the other editors who were taking part in this paid-editing Ponzi scheme should avoid commenting during deletion discussions that involve content created as a part of the scheme because there's a clear conflict of interest. Personally, if I'd been involved, I'd want to stay as far away from it as possible. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not cool Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all There is absolutely no reason to index these article. An alarming display of bad faith here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Money+editing=trouble for wikipedia. L3X1 (distant write)  14:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all, not least because the amount of effort removing refspam and looking for POV is such that WP:TNT represents a better use of the community's resources. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, there are a lot of pages in this editor's user space that fail WP:FAKEARTICLE - especially now the editor has been indefinitely blocked:

I have no idea what will happen to all of these fake articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * many of these are cut and paste page moves, not fake articles. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * about half the above list is drafts of material now in article space, the articles will have to be examined for possible deletion, & the drafts removed. There a few of them that might be important contributions. Some of these, like form 1099, are drafts of major additions to prior articles & I think some are usable. The other half are drafts intended for articles: again, a few maybe valuable, but most are not. This last group are the easiest to deal with, and I am going to list a number, separately: I see this as  misguided paid editing, not the usual utterly exploitative deliberately TOU violating corrupt paid editing, and I think the articles need to be examined individually. This is a little different from my usual attitude that the deliberate tou violation should be removed in the same drastic way we remove copyvio.  DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been looking at a lot of Form X and related articles by Vipul and Riceissa. The expansions are largely sourced form a reltively small number of sources, including law firms and other companies selling services around the article subject, but a few fundamentalist free market economists and the think tanks they inhabit. This group have created or promoted Liberty Fund, the Library of Economics and Liberty, a Liberty Fund project, EconLib, a project of the Library of Economics and Liberty, and EconLog, a blog on that website, and inserted opinions of Bryan Caplan, a blogger at that site, into a large numebr of articles, often sourced to his blog. Anything other than rolling back to before the first edit by any of the paid editing ring is a massive task. I have been cleaning up some of this crap and it is not straighforward, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The content of the FormX articles however are non-promotional. they can usually be sourced completely to the IRS website, which is authoritative, and, like other official sources, an acceptable primary source for the information. A secondary source, of course, is any one of 100s of  tax accounting books at various levels. Possibly removing some of the links would be enough. I do not think it makes any sense to remove any of the descriptive content, though I'm not prepared to work on this until I file my own tax return--I tend to be last-minute about such things. The material sourced to think tanks is of course another matter if it cannot be better sourced; the interpretations from them needs of course other interpretations also, and would best be removed. I consider this an essential series of articles. The previous attempts to smerge it was in my opinion an extremely poor idea, tho I haven't checked to see who proposed it.   What I am much more concerned about is the articles on organizations.The articles on people  will be easy to deal with,  because most of them are borderline notable at best and should  simply be deleted. I am reluctant to  get into arguments on just how to deal with this particular instance of paid editors--I would much rather  ferret out others.   DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.