Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Concerns about Benjiboi's pattern of editing which have effectively excluded other editors from changing Paid editing and participating in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing.

Desired outcome
A one revert-rule on the proposal text as well as a cap of one talk page edit per day.

Description

 * 1) Numerous editors have voiced concerns about 's editing behavior on Paid editing and Wikipedia talk:Paid editing. Although editors on all sides of the dispute agree that Benjiboi has made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, his editing on pages related to paid editing have been tendentious, dilatory, and disruptive.  Specific concerns are 1) ownership of the proposed text, 2) a repeated refusal of compromises, dispute resolution, or other suggestions, 3) a disruptive volume of dilatory talk page edits, and 4) a tendentious approach to discussions.  Some editors have expressed the concern these problems arise from his status as a paid editor.  When asked directly, he has refused to confirm or deny his status as a paid editor.  He has also indicated that he does not believe being a paid editor would constitute a conflict of interest in editing policy on paid editing, which has been a point of substantive contention. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
Ownership
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * see also
 * Number of edits on WP:PAID by top editor: Benjiboi 95, Smallbones 28, Will Beback 17, TeaDrinker 17, Dcoetzee 17.

Refusal of DR
 * 
 * 

Dilatory/Tendentious actions
 * shortly following
 * The sheer volume of edits (on the talk page), for instance Benjiboi made 33 edits on 22 Aug alone. Present number of edits by top editor: Benjiboi 210, TeaDrinker 124, Smallbones 69, Will Beback 67, Dcoetzee 45
 * Disingenuous characterisation: in light of  and
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * Disruptive editing
 * Gaming the system
 * Assume good faith
 * Conflict of interest

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Email about editing:
 * Five ideas to lessen rancour:
 * Mediation proposed:

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * "Disagree" with email:
 * Five ideas rejected:
 * Mediation rejected:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 *  Will Beback   talk    06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TeaDrinker (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Smallbones (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A closer look may be needed across-the-board. At the least, warring on this page should be slowed. Cool Hand Luke 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

These three editors (the two signed so far and Smallbones) tried to make their case at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive560 with absolutely no interest from uninvolved parties likely because I've done nothing wrong besides voluminous posts trying to address their rather odd argumenting to turn a page that implicitly says it is not policy into one. They seem to think that if they can impose a 1RR rule on me that they can tag-team anything they wish onto or off the page. Instead of actually achieving consensus through making constructive changes and civilly discussing what policy states vs. what we wish it would state. Frankly the personalized barbs and baiting against are tiresome. All three editors have variously accused me of all manner of COI, being a paid editor, purposely deceiving them, etc. All, of course, with no evidence whatsoever - as there is none - except that I have insisted that we not write policies we wish existed but follow the notice on the page itself - Note: This page is not a policy or guideline, it is an attempt to summarize existing policies and guidelines that relate to the general topic of paid editing. TeaDrinker and Smallbones have also been waving dispute resolution as a threat when myself and others have expressed we really don't feel that will get anywhere on the current issues as indefensible positions are rather hard to defend. I have patiently and civilly expressed this every time they push the issue. TeaDrinker's misrepresenting my view does bring up a core issue with paid editing in that our current policies, as is plainly evident on the community-wide RfC on the matter, do not inherently conflate paid editing with paid advocacy or COI or even paid editing services. As is evidenced above they are keen to misrepresent and even mythologize how I have suppressed them in some way from making valid contributions or discussing changes - I have not. They have also worked to characterize me as a paid editor - repleat with, of course COI concern - while simultaneously trying to require all who edit the page must disclose if they are a paid editor, a rejected proposal, and insisted that COI requires disclosure, it doesn't. They have tried to synthysize that all editors are COI and advocates when it's quite clear that is not only untrue but also not supported by the larger community as evidenced in the community-wide RfC. Rather than respect the community's comments they have insisted on pushing a POV that is not supported by policy or the community. Here:

is the link to the edit history. I am hardly the only one to revert but over the past few month my edits have tended to stick likely because I'm actually looking for consensus. Bold edits introducing material that compromises the page, even from me, have often been removed. Paid editing is a set of issues and none of them are as easy as the three editors seem to suggest. Even a quick overview of the only community RfC on the issue, the high profile cases and a review of many threads on these issues will show there is not a one size fits all solution. I have tried, despite the hostility, to improve the page and I think some of my edits have indeed done so. These editors are misguided that they can push away those that disagree with them, write a page that is in conflict with the community's wishes and it will do anything but go down in flames. After multiple requests from me for any proof that many of the dubious statements they wished to insert were, in fact, based in policy, I was tired of getting stonewalled so read through everything I could on these issues. I doubt any of them have. Paid editing is not as simple as they make it out to be and they should stick to their Paid editing/Alternative text and see if they can push a proposed policy out of it. For the record I see this RfC as solely to harass or subdue me.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  -- Banj e  b oi   09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by TheOtherBob
I'm unfamiliar with the parties, but had a look at the situation. (Admittedly I didn't read everything.) This looks like a case where people are boldly trying to make major changes, getting reverted, and discussing. That's good. The problem, as I see it, is that the discussion sometimes turns to the personalities rather than the topic. It's unsurprising that this leads nowhere. Arguing over the terms of the debate (who gets 1R, how many times a day someone can talk on the talk page, who has what COI, etc.) is almost never productive -- and this RFC just seems like a continuation. All editors should instead attempt to focus on the topic, rather than the personalities involved -- and everyone should strive to find ways to compromise, rather than ways to obtain their preferred result. That's my view -- for whatever it's worth.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --TheOtherBob 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Well stated.  -- Banj e  b oi   23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Broadly agree with The Other Bob; this is primarily a content issue.  pablo hablo. 00:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) The bitching was clearly going in two directions, not one. The request for a "1RR" rule was dubious as well, as it was mainly a two versus one dispute, meaning the two editors would always get the upper hand that way. Consensus on such an important subject is not defined by the wishes of two editors against one other editor, but should involve community broad discussion. Focus on the content, get more people involved! --Reinoutr (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) MacMedtalk stalk  01:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Abce2 |  From the top now!  Arggggg!  01:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) –blurpeace (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Ikip
Since the history of this dispute is so badly written by all sides, I will try to provide one here for the benefit of outsiders:


 * Arbcom
 * Background leading up to RFC: Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-15/News and notes
 * Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing
 * 17:01, 10 June 2009 User:Jimbo Wales wrote a statment in Requests for comment/Paid editing
 * 23:13, 29 July 2009 User:SilkTork marks Requests for comment/Paid editing as historical, and writes: "No clear consensus emerged from the discussion."  other material in this original summary was  reverted.
 * Paid editing
 * 15:55, 20 June 2009 Editor writes a new section on Wikipedia talk:Paid editing: "Per Jimbo, the use of pay for article editing is now specifically barred as a matter of WP policy." This is the first new section on the talk page since 10:09, 27 March 2007.
 * Benjiobi's first edit on the talk page. agreeing with another editor, Ben states that "Advocacy, paid or otherwise, remains a no-no." but seems to think that some paid editing is allowable.
 * Current article version versus edit right before Ben's first edit.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 August 2009

Outside view by A Nobody
Benjiboi has always been helpful and kind to me and is an overall asset to our project. I even recognize him on my list of nice editors. Therefore, I do not believe he should be sanctioned, restricted, or anything else that would discourage this wonderful editor.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As section writer. --A NobodyMy talk 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Lar

 * "Benjiboi has always been helpful and kind to me and is an overall asset to our project. I even recognize him on my list of nice editors. Therefore, I do not believe he should be sanctioned, restricted, or anything else that would discourage this wonderful editor." - A Nobody

No comment on the substantive matters raised at this time, although I may later (there are serious allegations that need further investigation, and I believe that investigation to be underway)

However, unlike A Nobody, just being nice to me isn't going to get you a pass if you have actually done something seriously wrong, and conversely, being mean to me isn't going to result in me calling for your head if you haven't done anything wrong. We ought to evaluate behavior based on objective criteria, not on whether we think someone has been kind to us or is on our special list of friends. A Nobody's way of looking at things is wrong. Further, if taken to logical conclusion, it's actively harmful to the project.

That is not to say we shouldn't be polite and nice and helpful to each other. Far from it. It's what we expect, it's what it means to be collegial, and when someone is especially nice, it's worthy of recognition. It's just that being nice to kittens doesn't excuse any bad behavior.
 * Addendum (after endorses 1-4) - This wasn't meant as a commentary on A Nobody per se... if I ever want to spend the time on a thorough commentary of A Nobody it would be a separate RFC/U, and a rather more lengthy amount of text than the above. It was intended merely to point out that "He loves kittens, therefore he must be blameless" sorts of inputs aren't really useful, and that at an RFC/U we should be striving to understand and evaluate actual problematic behaviors and their effect on the encyclopedia project. I considered just starting an "oppose" section but decided to go this way. Therefore, since this view is reminding folks of what RFC/Us are all about, and how to participate in them, in my view it's more on topic than a specific pro kittens comment is. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Although in principal I do agree, I have to point out that this outside view is just as unrelated to the actual RfC as the one by A Nobody. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Also endorse Reinoutr's summary of the summary; this is more a comment on A Nobody than Benjiboi.  pablo hablo. 14:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) You betcha ;) nb: mebbe we should merge this to another RFC/U… Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Of course.  I disagree w/ Reinoutr's comment above.  It's germane to the RfC, if not the editor.  We are allowed meta-commentary. Protonk (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Should have been obvious to everybody and thus shouldn't have needed to be said.  But sometimes it is necessary to say the obvious.  GRBerry 15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Fences and windows
This is a storm in a teacup. Benjiboi was working on the essay summarising existing policy on paid editing; other editors wanted to create new policy, especially after Our Leader Judge Dredd Jimbo announced that he'd block paid editors on sight. Obviously summarising existing policy and creating new policy can't be done on the same page, but when Benjiboi tried to keep the essay as a summary of existing policy the other editors asked when he stopped beating his wife if he was a paid editor and Benjiboi refused to confirm or deny it. I think this was to demonstrate that a policy banning paid editors is unenforceable as they're not going to admit it, but some editors appear to have taken this as tantamount to admitting it. It all got a bit heated, went to AN/I, and now has landed here.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Fences  &amp;  Windows  07:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.