How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&old...
I guess if you donate enough money on December 27th to the Wikimedia Foundation, you're allowed to create whatever you want about yourself on Wikipedia. When I suggested that MyWikiBiz could make per-article donations to Wikimedia, I was hissed out of the room.
Let the OFFICE spin begin.
Nobody gave Virgin permission to create an article about Virgin Unite. If the community deems such an article inappropriate, deletion or change are entirely permissible.
I note that the user was blocked, and the article expanded by the community.
Not to fan the flames, but I see [[en:Virgin Unite]] is up at AfD... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virgin_Unite
-Luna
On 12/28/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Not to fan the flames, but I see [[en:Virgin Unite]] is up at AfD...
And speedy kept. Conflict of interest considerations should guide user behavior, but it is not cause to delete (or keep) an article; it should stand or fall on its own merits.
-Matt
On 12/28/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Not to fan the flames, but I see [[en:Virgin Unite]] is up at AfD... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virgin_Unite
Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.
1) We ask for donations 2) Virgin Unite offers donations 3) Virgin Unite creates an article on itself, totally above board, using its own name 4) Virgin Unite gets blocked 5) The article about Virgin Unite gets expanded, then nominated for deletion. (and, as noted, kept)
It's bad enough that an article about a major philanthropic foundation got nominated in the first place, but that it happened to be the very organisation that was that day giving *us* money. Jeez.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/28/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Not to fan the flames, but I see [[en:Virgin Unite]] is up at AfD... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virgin_Unite
Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.
- We ask for donations
- Virgin Unite offers donations
- Virgin Unite creates an article on itself, totally above board,
using its own name 4) Virgin Unite gets blocked
Until a checkuser is run which shows that it *was* Virgin behind the account, they were blocked under the all-reaching username policy.
(Welcome to Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia whose silliness rivals Nationstates.)
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
- Virgin Unite gets blocked
Until a checkuser is run which shows that it *was* Virgin behind the account, they were blocked under the all-reaching username policy.
(Welcome to Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia whose silliness rivals Nationstates.)
Seems legitimate to me. Either the user isn't Virgin United, and needs to be blocked, or the user is, and the article is a conflict of interest.
The user shouldn't be able to avoid this just by keeping it unclear which one he is.
On 28/12/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&old...
I guess if you donate enough money on December 27th to the Wikimedia Foundation, you're allowed to create whatever you want about yourself on Wikipedia. When I suggested that MyWikiBiz could make per-article donations to Wikimedia, I was hissed out of the room.
Huh, interesting; I thought that article had been created by the Anome. (I remember looking into creating it myself the previous night, but the paucity of information on the org in question meant it'd have been a dismal substub; it was already redlinked from [[Virgin Group]])
If we'd blocked the user and speedy-deleted the article when it was created, I can guarantee you it'd have been recreated in good faith by a community member later that day. Sometimes, kneejerk deletion reactions are somewhat futile.
On 12/28/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
If we'd blocked the user and speedy-deleted the article when it was created, I can guarantee you it'd have been recreated in good faith by a community member later that day. Sometimes, kneejerk deletion reactions are somewhat futile.
Indeed. I'll use the same saying I used recently when discussing whether all contributions of banned users should be deleted, because it applies equally here: we shouldn't cut off our noses just to spite our faces.
To illustrate what I mean, here's the article as it stood when the account "User:Virgin United" started it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&oldid=96734604
And here it is, 50-something edits later at the time of this mail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&oldid=96916255
I checked it with History Flow and the only text remaining from the original version is the external link to their official site. The rest has been compiled by 23 other Wikipedians plus a couple of anonymous users, who have made between 1 and 10 edits each.
There is nothing wrong with the article as it stands. The question of whether we should have an article at all (or whether it should be merged somewhere else, etc) is not so urgent that we need decide it right at this very minute. Everyone come back in a couple of days and we can discuss that question then.
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
You would think that they would know how to spell the name of their own organization correctly.
I think it's far more likely that some troll created this account just to justify exactly this sort of complaint.
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
You would think that they would know how to spell the name of their own organization correctly.
I think it's far more likely that some troll created this account just to justify exactly this sort of complaint.
Or maybe there's no valid conspiracy theory at all. Maybe someone created this account because they couldn't create a new article without creating an account. Why is there so much of a tendency to assume bad faith?
Anthony
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&old...
Here's a possibility: maybe [[User:Virgin United]] has nothing to do with [[Virgin Unite]]. Seems unlikely to me that Virgin Unite would create a username spelling its own name wrong.
I guess if you donate enough money on December 27th to the Wikimedia Foundation, you're allowed to create whatever you want about yourself on Wikipedia.
Unless they're blocked from creating new articles, anyone can create whatever they want about themselves on Wikipedia.
When I suggested that MyWikiBiz could make per-article donations to Wikimedia, I was hissed out of the room.
So...have you decided that you were wrong before, or are you just being hypocritical?
Anthony
On 12/27/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&old...
I guess if you donate enough money on December 27th to the Wikimedia Foundation, you're allowed to create whatever you want about yourself on Wikipedia. When I suggested that MyWikiBiz could make per-article donations to Wikimedia, I was hissed out of the room.
Let the OFFICE spin begin.
-- Gregory Kohs
I was under the impression that we'd already had this article for a while. I never thought to check. :)
--Ryan
I just don't like the ad.
On 12/28/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&old...
I guess if you donate enough money on December 27th to the Wikimedia Foundation, you're allowed to create whatever you want about yourself on Wikipedia. When I suggested that MyWikiBiz could make per-article
donations
to Wikimedia, I was hissed out of the room.
Let the OFFICE spin begin.
-- Gregory Kohs
I was under the impression that we'd already had this article for a while. I never thought to check. :)
--Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I just don't like the ad.
I don't mind the ad now any more than the ad two days ago, or the ad two months ago. It does seem to be a slippery slope, though.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 12/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I just don't like the ad.
I don't mind the ad now any more than the ad two days ago, or the ad two months ago. It does seem to be a slippery slope, though.
Anthony
To an extent I agree. The current advertisement is just about the limit of what I'm prepared to tolerate.
-Gurch
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote: Re: User:Virgin United
Let the OFFICE spin begin.
I'm not in the office, but here's my "spin".
So the account has been checked via checkuser and has been confirmed to be another Wikipedian.
I don't fully understand why he would have done this, so I'm not just going to step out and say it.
This subject has caused a huge amount of controversy and people are using it as an excuse to antagonize endlessly on the wiki.
I think it would be beneficial to the community if the guilty party would admit it here.
My first instinct about User:Virgin United was that it was a troll looking to incite a reaction or perform a breaching experiment. Now that CheckUser has verified it to be another Wikipedian (presumably one of good standing?), the troll moniker might not apply, but certainly the breaching experiment would.
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote: Re: User:Virgin United
Let the OFFICE spin begin.
I'm not in the office, but here's my "spin".
So the account has been checked via checkuser and has been confirmed to be another Wikipedian.
I don't fully understand why he would have done this, so I'm not just going to step out and say it.
This subject has caused a huge amount of controversy and people are using it as an excuse to antagonize endlessly on the wiki.
I think it would be beneficial to the community if the guilty party would admit it here. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l