Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 15 February 2012

Might want to join

See User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch Nobody Ent 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lifted from Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance

• == Misplaced Pages:WEaPOn ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WEaPOn&action=history, Wikipedia_talk:WEaPOn – Should this be moved to the userspace? Buster7 has been targeting Joedesantis for a while now:

• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_55#Communications_Manager_managing_communications
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Buster7/Sandbox-Campaign&action=history
• Talk:Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012#Reply
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_96#Paid_Operatives (canvassing at least six editors: , , , , , .)

Buster7 has been forum-shopping in an attempt to generate an anti-Joedesantis lynch mob, and he was failed every time. I feel that this is a case of "not knowing when to drop the stick." I don't believe that a page devoted to Buster7's vendetta against Joesantis belongs in the Project namespace; it should be moved to the userspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this forum?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely should be PRODded as "attack page" from what I see - it is almost entirely about a single named editor. And it "conflicts" with WP:COI to boot <g>. Collect (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All claims above are a one-sided partisan view of my intentions. I have always and repeatedly praised Joe, not set out to lynch him ((which is quite an outlandish claim). I have no vendetta against Joe. When the general election arrives and the Democrats have a Paid Operative orchestrating edits to all the Obama articles there will be a history of what is expected and what has been experienced. BTW, one of you should point out to Joe that he is required to put a tag before he requests a change, as noted at WP:COI. The above editors were notified of a conversation developing at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid operatives which is canvassing but is permitted under the auspices of Jimbo himself. The were asked to reply. They were not given instructions on HOW to reply. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

''ANATOMY OF A MURDER''</small> ===

Casliber, if Buster is gonna do that, then I claim several votes for "married": Joe DeSantis, Cullen328, Brian Dell (aka BDell555), Mr. Bergstrom, 75.73.44.170, and I'm sure there are others. --Kenatipo Kenatipo Writegeist (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll follow Editor Writegeists' advice. But, Kenatipo. This thread name sounds remarkably like a challenge to a steet fight. I find no humor in it. Your aggression and petty nit-picking is not helping maintain a working environment. In RL I would gladly accept. Here, I've decided to ignore your "throwdown" but would ask that you change the name. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Aggression? Are you the same BusterSeven that just started a WikiProject to make the working environment more hostile for Joe DeSantis? --Kenatipo 05:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not aggressive at all. Record keeping, at best. When the general election happens in the Fall, very few paid operatives (on either side) will be wearing nametags. The project is in preparation for that. Please assume good faith. I'm not your enemy. I just vote blue. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Additional thought....If User:Joe is going to be the official Jimbo sponsored template for future paid operatives, then there needs to be a record of what that "template" did. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(note) Buster is referring to WP:WEaPOn Collect (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure

Partial disclosure - of a paid agent's vested interest in contributing to articles relating to the person or organization that pays him or her to contribute, remove and/or influence information published in the articles - is obviously better than none. One known agent, whose paymaster is currently campaigning for the US presidency, discloses his conflict of interest in his preambles to the comments and edit requests he places on the talk pages of the relevant articles and on the UTPs of users he selects to act as his proxy. He also discloses his position as a paid communications operative for the campaign in his signature line. (Kudos to B7 for suggesting this.) This is fine as far as it goes, which is to say it partially discloses his vested interest to other editors who visit the talk pages. I say partially, because there is never a disclosure in the relevant edit summaries. I would like to see it introduced.

However such disclosures do nothing to address our ethical duty to inform a visitor (who may never check out the talk page) that his/her reasonable assumptions (i.e. that the article he/she is reading is the product of collaboration between editors who are not paid operatives and have no financially vested interest in what information is or isn't included) may be misplaced. How about placing a warning on these articles?

I am well aware that a paid operative who identifies him/herself by name and openly declares his/her COI (as outlined in para 1 above) is working within existing policy and guidelines. I remain of the view that while this avoids contravention of WP:COI etc., it also circumvents an ethical duty (of full disclosure) towards our readers. Writegeist (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... it is not a personal attack. It is a record, compiled for future reference and to provide clarity, byway of actual experiences and conversations, of a situation (the existence and actions of a Paid political operative) that is, and will continue to be, an on-going aspect on Misplaced Pages. It is a conversation that is taking place here and across the internet. Public relations people and Jimbo are having it. Blogs are having it. This page is clearly not meant to attack User:joedesantis. Jimbo himself has stated that he is watching the sitution with a critcal eye while still assuming good faith. i am doing the same. This project is provided as a viewing station and a repository for "things that happen" related to the ONLY SELF_IDENTIFIED Political Operative currently editing at Misplaced Pages. It is repeated over and over that the intent is not to attack or demean or doubt Joe's intentions. This has been made clear to Jimbo, to Editor Joe Desantis on his talk page, and to anyone that will listen. I understand that some may view it as an attack. But they would be in error. Or, they may have ulterior motives for its removal. Any un-biased read of the various sections that are not lifts or retrievals of conversations will attest to that fact. Granted there are heated discussions that show up in the talk pages, but their inclusion is to provide a history of the on-going discussion from many different talk pages and vantage points. Perhaps it is in the wrong place. Perhaps it should be a sandbox or some other lower-level page. If so, please advise so my effort to be a historian of an on-going "happening now" situation is not lost. Thank you for your understanding. I'm sure if the page is viewed only as a site for information it will not be deleted. --Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that an admin has now removed the erroneous tag and restored the content of the improperly blanked page. Writegeist (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Although, I sense an WP:MFD sooner than later. Someone didn't think this through very well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this, I tend to agree. Should make for a lively debate. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Administrator Wilkins...And while thinking it thru (before acting) moments and interactions and discussions take place pertinent to the history I'm attemting to archive. If you have an idea that might help, share it. Don't treat me like a child that has wandered out into the busy street. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A project does not exist to provide a historical archive. They exist to shepherd a series of related encyclopedia topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"So should I move it somewhere else". It doesnt need to be a project. Should it be in a sandbox? Which I already asked in my reply. So.... I miss-called it an archive. But sheparding is a good visual...I'm attempting to "shepard" various bits and pieces of widely seperated edits that are happening 10 miles a minute. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Users can keep pages in their userspace that document conflicts or issues in preparation for Requests for Comment or Arbitration cases or the like, but that license is limited. You can't have user pages that focus on specific other users indefinitely. Even then, you must be neutral in your tone - actively criticizing other users can quickly devolve into wikistalking, hounding, OUTing, or other shenanigans. If the intent is just to keep a set of diffs that shows a pattern of behavior, then the aggressive title (Weapon - pointed at whom?) and the analysis are unnecessary. If the intent is to highlight the problems inherent in this sort of Paid editing, a neutral essay may be more effective. I'm not sure what the best option is, though. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a worthwhile subject for an essay. This laudable effort to throw light on the subject and raise important issues relating to it could be moved to user namespace (if B7 doesn't want it edited by others) and modified slightly to avoid any wording that might be interpreted as aggressive intent in its inclusion of any named individual(s). (Which, BTW, the author is already at pains to point out in the essay, is NOT the intent.) It could also be left unmoved if B7 is happy for others to edit it; and perhaps renamed to such as Paid Operatives at Misplaced Pages. Writegeist (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note from what I last saw, a certain editor's name remains in this "essay". As such, it does qualify as an attack page and should therefore be speedied accordingly. I know I could WP:SOFIXIT, but, I'll leave that for someone else ... I'll check back to speedy shortly though :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your wording implies you will return, shortly, and you will speedy...astho it was a foregone conclusion that no matter what, you will speedy. I have removed the Comm Director name from the thread titles. The project is no longer a project; it is an essay. I can easily remove Jimbo's name from that thread if you like. Anything else? Will it be safe overnight? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy does not proscribe inclusion of an editor's name in an essay. (Or does it? Maybe I just can't find it. If so please direct me to it.) The mere (and in this case, positive) mention of an editor does not make an essay an "attack page". (Or does it? If so please direct me to the relevant policy statement.) The essay is about paid operatives contributing to articles about the people and/or organizations that pay them to supervise and control information about them. The editor is mentioned as one who laudably self-discloses that he is a paid communications director for a certain individual and a certain political campaign. He is open about his vested interest. The essay includes nothing about him as an individual that he has not already disclosed himself on Misplaced Pages. He is cited as an individual working within WP policy and guidelines - i.e. an exemplar.

The essay questions whether it's desirable for paid operatives, even when working openly and fully within the guidelines, to work on articles about the people and organizations they're paid to promote; and if so, how best to go about it. It does not question this particular individual's integrity, openness, or adherence to policy and guidelines (in fact quite the reverse). It does not denigrate him, or Mr Wales, who is also mentioned. There is no BLP violation. The piece has already been speedy tagged once (by a non-admin). The tag was very rapidly removed by an admin who apparently saw no justification for it. It is only reasonable to expect any admin who intends to speedy the essay to consult with the admin who already removed the tag and restored the page. Writegeist (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)