Talk:Web Sheriff

NPOV 3rd time

This article is still really biased. There's no real criticism at all, and the article is very positive about the company. The NPOV template shouldn't be removed until more people are satisified that it doesn't read like an advert. The fact that this is the 4th round of discussions in 4 months shows the issue is being prematurely shelved. ··gracefool☺ 23:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are including yourself, there are 3 separate discussions of POV and the other two were ended already. Two of the discussions that were listed here were actually involving charges by the same editor, Luisarfs, who must I say once more, had only made contributing edits on a few musician's articles regarding a competing organization in Portugal. He will appear again, no doubt. He advocated removing large chunks of the article as his method of editing and fixing it to his satisfaction. He did suggest one to the Pirate Bay paragraph in the article. I replied that it was fine with me, but he never made the edit. I will put his information in the article myself.

The article, of course, is under attack, because the company frequently upsets people when it removes links to illegal downloads, etc. I'm very sure that this will continue over and over with time. And I was aware of that fact, when I started to edit the article. Every one of the POV accusations was made by SPAs or editors with a bias of their own. Should fans nasty comments on blogs be used in the article or exactly what should we put in here to be negative? Nothing is being suppressed of note, so do we make things up, to please the disgruntled, unhappy, BitTorrent users who frequent the talk page? A recent article, over the weekend, in TorrentFreak (not exactly fans) linked to this article, (although, perhaps. surprisingly, not in a negative context), so I was prepared for more tags going up and more dissenters claiming POV. Agadant (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm also sure it will come up, again and again. as to why I defend this article and as I have stated before it is because I am the one who has put in the hours of work. What else can I do? See it vandalized and deleted? I do think we need to realize that you can't just count times an article is attacked, but have to consider this is a very common method of venting because of Wikipedia's policy of allowing anyone to edit. Talk pages are used like blog forums. Agadant (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The One Guardian??? editor above agreed with me that he was venting against the Web Sheriff's takedowns on BitTorrent sites and his edits removing such information, pointed to that conclusion. Agadant (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did what? To be clear: I agree this article has serious NPOV issues, citation reliability issues, and is bizarrely moderated by one individual who is extremely overprotective of the article and increasingly resistant to any feedback whatsoever. For the record, I have never had any direct involvement with this company and stumbled upon this page while looking at a related topic. That I was so immediately appalled by its state led me to edit it, get engaged in the (long-running) discussion rant about its advertisement like status, and then accept that any attempt to modify it at all is pointless so long as one user, Agadant, abuses the wiki format in an attempt to secure his or her sovereignty over the article. The ridiculous common refrain "I must guard it because people get upset and hack it" seems unsupported and an ultimately empty rationale. I have a hard time believing Agadant does not have some conflict of interest, even if it springs not from remuneration but from a psychological attachment to this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.65.23 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you worked on Wiki, you would know it is not uncommon, at all, for one editor to work on an article until they have perfected it. I have done the same on many others, over the years. (This one is just a more controversial topic than most: an anti-piracy company) I have, in fact, made changes to the article, that have been suggested by others and am constantly striving to learn more, as I go along and make improvements. Your very presence here again, making accusations against me and the article are evidence that what I say is, in fact, true - I have twice had to defend myself and the article to you, when all I am doing here, is a process called "editing an article" and I enjoy it! Thanks for your cmments and your support of my efforts.Agadant (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The actual number of times THIS article, on a company involved in this type of work, is accused of being POV should not be the determining factor in tagging it, in all fairness. Agadant (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DRIVEBY: ":Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Agadant (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the archive, a talk page shouldn't be blanked. I've moved the oldest stuff to the first archive page, the rest is only a few months old.

As for WP:DRIVEBY, in full context I did the right thing. The previous sentence to your quote says "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies.", which I did. This is indeed the fourth time someone has raised the issue of this article being POV in a year (I missed the first which was sitting by itself in an archive page for some reason) - so it's hardly a last resort. Tags are standard practice for controversial articles, there are many that have had them for years.

As for bias, everyone has a point of view. But as you helpfully point out, you feel you have a lot to to lose from people changing an article you feel is "yours" because you've contributed so much to it. You've been vigorously defending it against all comers for a year. Who are you calling biased?

It's not your article, it's everyone's - so if there are repeated calls for a simple POV tag to be added, that is indeed be one of the determining factors in tagging it - in all fairness.

I don't want a war, so I'm not re-adding it even though it belongs. Hopefully we can get some more outside help.

··gracefool☺ 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, but to be fair, other than yourself and a 3O editor who oddly reversed themself and wanted only to delete material against policy, I've defended it from anon IPs and SPA's wanting to "delete" whatever they don't care for. This protection of reliably sourced material is so commonly done, is not against policy and performed with good cause on WP by main editors, that I should not have to defend myself for it. Look at some other articles such as The Pirate Bay, U2, Bob Dylan, etc., etc., etc.. As far as archiving and blanking, you need to WP: AGF, I'm no expert on that, but someone who should be, messed it up before me and I did my best to straighten it out. I'm not trying to hide anything! Just trying to abide by rules and what is done elsewhere on WP. Why doesn't this article get any suggestions made in good faith? Why is the talk page only taken over by accusations against me and the article? Everyone is so emotional about it, like it is the only article they personally have ever seen on WP that they feel is biased? (and in most cases, the first and only article they have ever edited on before and since) The POV accusations, of course, attract more of the same... that's human nature... so if I have tried perhaps prematurely to move on, it's only been to, for once, have a dialogue that is respectful towards me and the company and one which might in fact contain some good suggestions, like a talk page should. These are just blanket criticisms and accusations. Agadant (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Agadant and thank you for all the time you have spent developing this article and the many other contributions that you have made to Wikipedia. At the same time I would also echo the general sentiment that you see repeatedly in the threads above. That is that despite your great work and best intentions, the article is a bit promotional and needs the attention of editors who are not so attached to the article as you are. I note in your post above that you mention the word "defend" several times and I have seen it in other posts. I am not expert on this topic but I have done a lot of WP editing and what I see after spending 10 minutes on this article and talk page is that you have made 95% of all the edits to the article and despite your best intentions you are exerting WP:OWNERSHIP of this article. It may be time for you to just walk away and focus on a new project and let the community have some time to sort this article out. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks and I appreciate you are using a respectful tone, and yes, some have thought it was a bit promotional, but that doesn't mean because they have a negative view that they are right. I, and others, who tend to see things in life and on Wiki, in a positive view think it is a thorough, well-sourced, heavily-researched, informative and fairly complete article on a company that sometimes does unpopular work. Let's be honest, have you considered that this article is going to always be getting some kind of negative response from some of the affected persons for an infinite amount of time, unless you write it favouring illegal downloading and portray this company as a force of evil against the principles of file-sharing that some believe is a right on the internet. Well, I did, when I started working on it and saw the comments about the company on some of the blogs that Web Sheriff made an appearance on. I also saw the TorrentFreak article recently, that put a "bulls eye" on this article and even linked to it directly. And by the way, I've worked extensively on the Van Morrison main article (and related ones) for almost five years, getting it through GA with an admins assistance and I've never been told to walk away and let others delete my work, as they see fit. I don't think you can use it against me that I've been a diligent worker, when I get started on a topic. If you don't find out a lot about what you're writing about and become somewhat of an expert in the process, than you shouldn't be writing about it, IMO. As far as your taking exception to my use of the word "defend", I have used it because I have been accused of it. Actually, I am only following the WP policy of preventing reliably sourced information from being deleted on articles. Other articles have editors that watch for that, why shouldn't this one? I don't think I'm in the wrong on that and page histories even have a "number of watchers" to view. Am I really to be considered as claiming ownership for doing 95% of the edits here? I don't think there's a limit set for how many you can do. I've seen articles brought to GA and FA even, with the work of only one editor. Agadant (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You seem committed to staying with the article and though I don't agree with your reasoning I accept your decision and I look forward to working together to improve the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience on WP, generalized discussions tend to wander and make little progress and take up a lot of time. So I prefer discussions about specific items. I'm not sure what is being discussed or proposed in this thread. If some editor(s) feel the article needs a POV tag for example, then they should make a specific list of issues and what they feel needs to be done to make the article compliant with NPOV. This allows the tag to be removed once those issues are dealt with. Or, if someone feels a particular sentence or section is POV then again, we need to be specific about how that sentence or section needs to be amended to be compliant. These kinds of specific proposals can be discussed, consensus achieved and action undertaken. I am willing to participate in this process if others will be specific as to what they think is wrong and how it can be corrected. Then we can collaborate together and amend the article as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, I don't agree on the issue of tagging the article just because someone comes up with any issue they want to cite that is only their personal and maybe in itself. a POV opinion on the article. I rhink that like other Wiki articles, If this one should be tagged, in any fashion, it would have been done and upheld by some experienced editor or admin some time ago. And the rules state: Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. I've never been adverse to making changes in the article if they were sound and productive and I have made many over the course of time. So what I'm saying is: Yes, they should state what they think is wrong, but that doesn't, of necessity, make what they are stating right. The issues need to be examined for validity first and discussed and addressed on the article if valid. Agadant (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I disagree but until someone comes forth with a proposal its not worth discussing as its another generalized point. I would like to participate in the discussion of proposals for specific content changes. So let' see what comes up. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being civil to me. Will you help to restore the article as it was to this point so that it can be discussed. I am not capable of doing anything further right now but feel like a melt-down. I have many personal issues I am trying to deal with and this attack on me and the article is devastating to me and I can no longer think clearly. Please help altho perhaps you are upset with me, as I opposed you. Agadant (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The following was written after the quick deletions,and tagging were already done. NOTHING BEFORE. Please note time. Agadant (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite correct. Would you like to discuss the content issues now? aprock (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You make this seem very personal and contentious. Agadant (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

removing laundry list of media apearences

The list of clients is not at all encyclopedic, and should not be in the article. See WP:UNDUE, WP:LAUNDRY. I've tagged it with the appropriate clean up template which should generate external review at some point in the future. aprock (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Clients section

The clients section contains far too much detail that is of no encyclopedic interest. Certainly some of the more widely reported on client success stories and gaffes should be mentioned, but inclusion of an extended client list, and details after detail of work done for clients is not needed. aprock (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This was all shocking without any discussion or consensus for you to delete sourced material and put tags with no warning, discussion or consensus.

It ia like vandalism. Agadant (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have shocked you. Do you have anything to say about the content issues? aprock (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you give any warning? I was working with you on your previous deletion fo material yesterday, etc.. I was WP:AGF, But today's quick actions on your part were uncalled for and out of order... I reacted as to a vandal... but I think you should have a reputation to uphold. So why are you doing this? Agadant (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So why are you doing this? Please refer to the content issues at the top of the section. Thank you. aprock (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds really personal on your part. I hate to think that but you have not been civil at all. Agadant (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like a press release - it needs the flamethrowers turning on it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is trolling! and asking for an all out assault... surely some sense of order will be restored soon. Agadant (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have merged the three client sections and placed Reception at the bottom, where it usually goes. I am in agreement with Aprocks initial post in this thread and feel this rather large Client sectoin should be summarized to about 25% of its current form and placed in a History section. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, why have you taken out the part about the fan reactions, even? That was appropriate., for sure for an anti-piracy company's article? It seems like it is being suppressed that fans have a negative reaction on blogs to Web Sheriff. It was well sourced. There is even an article entitled Web Sheriff the most hated man on the internet. Why did you leave the artilcle ragged and tagged? How can any body do this to an article and feel good as a Wikipedia editor? Agadant (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Briefly reviewing the article and recent editing, I think the editors are doing a good job of making this into a properly sourced, encyclopedic article. Looks like there's more to do. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tags at the top of the article as the only remaining section that needs significant clean up is currently tagged and currently under discussion. At the time they were placed the tags were necessary and appropriate but now that there has been significant trimming and copy editing it seemed like over tagging to me. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you all talking about it on the phone or email? Agadant (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess that was a little humor, but where is the discussion taking place? I don't see it here. Why is that?

Further deletions request

Before this article gets more deleted and more reliable sources, information, and content is deleted, I think in the community spirit of fairness and equality on WP, NPOV policies and other misc. points such as WP: Syn as in the latest deletion, should be brought up and discussed. I am not a careless editor, disregarding policies constantly and not using reliable sources, etc.. Perhaps, as all of us do as editors I do not understand and make an entry that is out of policy. But I don't think it's that often, not like what these quick assumptions would indicate. A lot of material has already been deleted without discussion. Why, it is so easy to delete as I have pointed out many time and as the WP:NPOV policies call for little deletion concerning potentially POV material and only when some discussion has taken place. To delete this material this quickly and by many editors working as fast as possible to give it their least attention is not proper procedure. I have protested and LOUDLY to try to stop this before it goes further. I am hardly ever answered respectfully, have been put up on the COI noticeboard (resolved as not, which I am appreciative of) and in general treated like the enemy who should be ignored. There's not a single one of you multiple editors who have descended from out of nowhere, as far as this article was concerned, that would lay down and allow this to happen to your work and reputation. As with everyone of us, I was not able because of immense personal issues to respond calmly at the time this first took place. I did state that asking for further time but my request was ignored. Why is this taking place so quickly and without discussion? I want to know and I want to be treated with respect or it seems to me that these edits come from a POV attitude towards a controversial subject - an anti-piracy company. Not one of you has answered my inquiry: Does anyone dispute that this company and its work can be on the receiving end of much emotion and anger. Why was the fan reaction part deleted? If I'm not mistaken it was sourced by The LA Times. This is only one of the issues I would like to have an answer for. I do not believe, I can not believe, that proper procedures are being followed here. Anymore than they were by the 3O editor who appeared here and made some extraordinary out of policy decisions for deleting reliably sourced material and siding completely with the editor who requested the 3O, although the first decision on ADVERT was to rule the article was not . It's all there in the records but no one wants to take any time here, IMO. Agadant (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the big difference here between the 2 articles as far as POV and ADVERT?

I am not trying to cause any problems for The Pirate Bay article or editors, it's just that I am completely confused that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, so to speak. Looking again at The Pirate Bay article, I see a lot of similarities that exist between it and the last version of Web Sheriff before it was massively deleted without consensus. I know I looked at the article more than once in editing this one, for guidance on editing on related subject matter but of course completely opposing. I'm not going into details now but any editor that goes to the trouble and cares enough and all of you should as conscientious WP editors will see that similar material is in that article that was deleted in WS. For instance, almost all operational details were deleted here on the company. Another, Pirate Bay contains a laundry list of Blocking in various countries. Lots of similarities of presentation appear, and as I have stated, I did look at The Pirate Bay for guidance on what types of information, how to present it, structure it, etc. several times when I worked on this article. Not in a copycat fashion and not with any enmity or strong feelings against The Pirate Bay. But because I knew many editors were at work there and it was greatly watched and read and was related in a sense. The record will show I have made no edits there that I can ever remember. I DON'T EXPECT AN ANSWER AS I NEVER RECEIVE ONE FROM ANY OF THE CURRENT EDITORS WHO HAVE TAKEN OVER THIS ARTICLE, but I want this on record. At this point, I am completely at a loss, as to how this all is happening? and why it is being allowed by all the WP community? Agadant (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What you are talking about is WP:OTHERSTUFF - so other stuff exists on wikipedia that needs fixing, I've not read the pirate bay, I don't plan to read it (there are only so many hours in the day I spend on wikipedia), I don't plan to do anything about any of it's problems. It's irrelevant to this article and if it complies with policy. Any problems you have with that article, you should take there. As for the deletioning happening without consensus - that doesn't have to happen via discussion, it can happen via action - over the last two days, six long term editors went to work on this article, erasing the irrelevant, removing novel sythesis (the use of two seperate sources to advance a position neither makes - in this case, one source saying the company did X and another saying that the sales of album were Y) and promotional language. That's consensus in action. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, why was Luisarfs deletion of much material not reverted? He is not an experienced editor. His editing history only shows Web Sheriff POV editing and only deletions, never any contribution of material. I would have had so much more confidence in this process, if that had taken place. And then every word I write is used against me when I realize that this is not a fair process at all and I am too sick to know the proper channels to go through for some assistance. Speaking of rights, I am an experienced editor, I should be allowed to edit here and now you are threatening to have me topic banned? That is uncalled for and undue pressure. I was very upset to see that Luisarfs editing was not reverted. I would have had more confidence in this process by multiple editors who discuss nothing on the talk page and say they don't have to because they are experienced, but Luisarfs deletions should not have been allowed. Especially without discussion on the talk page. Over five hours passed, and not one reverted Luisarfs edits then I did and some positive changes in Style editing and naming information that was called indiscriminate by Luisarfs. You started changing my very minor (in comparison to Luisarfs massive deletion of reliable source material) in 9 minutes time. Agadant (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What I have pointed out does indeed show that this article is not so out of the ordinary and out of line, after all. All of the policies on WP such WP:Laundry WP:NPOV, etc. have interpretations and exceptions that different editors can discuss as to application on different material. What is because the different editors have not reverted one of the other one's edits, we can assume that they are in consensus? I am a long term editor myself, having been here almost 5 years and having over 11,000 edits and more actual article percentage time than most of these editors. So if long term is the qualification, I insist in being included and I do not agree with most of what has been done by these editors who have participated. I have expected some neutral editor to step in and stop it and when one did show up removing the tags after they were not needed, he was reverted, showing that only deletions and negative methods are acceptable here. As I have stated on the NPOV page, I object to these deletion tactics. No respect has been shown to the hours of work that another editor (myself) has contributed. Agadant (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

deletion of sourced material

I have reverted an edit by anon IP who was previously known as Luisarfs and who left a previous discussion that was closed after he or HelloAnnYong made no reply for over 30 days. I had to make his suggested edit about Peter Sunde for him. He is an editor from Portugal who edits about a competing organization on anti-piracy enforcement. He is removing sourced material. HelloAnnYong also left the discussion at the same time with no further discussion. Agadant (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that[1] was me. Luísarfs (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Disrespectful terms used in summary

Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motivated when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [2] All but the barest descriptions are being reversed. The company is not even being allowed to be called an "international policing company". He has changed that often used term to an organization which is effect, not correct. Agadant (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not involved in policing (which has a very specific meaning) in any way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Policing" can also mean "general cleaning" of an area (although usually used as a military term). Not exactly a common usage in a WP article, however. And, as used in the article, substantially misleading. Collect (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it can have a more general meaning but if we start an article saying a company is "an international policing organisation", then we are misleading the reader, as you say it's substantially misleading. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Insulting comment ignored by above

This is the biggest issue that you have not addressed: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [3] Agadant (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've used the phrase multiple times on multiple articles, it's simply a phrase, it's not aimed at anyone in particular. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am insulted and personally offended by your filthy, salacious comment that was directed to me and my editing!!!! Agadant (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I lol'ed. Seriously though, this article needs less fluff that sounds like it was devised by a PR firm and more honest editing. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You betchum! On a scale of 1 to 10 on the "nasty-summary-ometer" this one barely makes a 3. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NO MATTER HOW MANY OF HIS FRIENDS DEFEND HIM, IT STILL STANDS HE WAS OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING! JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SAY IT'S OKAY DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Agadant (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- Cameron and I are not "buddies" as a matter of fact. Indeed, we "intersect" on a grand total of eleven articles, on many of which we disagreed. He and Tarc intersect on 9 articles. Tarc and I on a total of 5 articles. In short - almost no overlap among us at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL: Uncivil comments on his part and not even an apology as regardless of whether you all think it is funny, I don't. Agadant (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It merits a "3" on a 1 to 10 scale. My suggestion is that you have a cup of tea and look at what is regarded on WP as serious incivility. Read some of WP:WQA for example - where serious defamatory claims about people have been made which make this one look trivial. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cameron, I appreciate your contributions to the clean up of this article but your BJ comment is not appropriate and you would do well to strike it. Also, Agadant, please note that according to WP:CIVIL the use of capital letters on a talk page is not appropriate and is the Wiki equivalent of shouting, see WP:SHOUT.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this article for three days. I don't know what's going on here, but you guys need to work it out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? Not twelve hours after the protection wore off, you guys are back to warring? Whatever. It's indefinitely protected now, so you have no choice but to work out your issues. Let me know when you've come to some conclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is a significant amount of history here, but none of the edits since the last protection struck me as edit warring. In fact, I would not consider any of them even a revert. How did the edits since the last protection differ from your expectations? VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there were three successive edits all about the first sentence of the article. You guys can't even agree on that? Come on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits resulted in a (IMHO) better lead sentence than was there before, that appears to have been considered by all parties a reasonable compromise. Not really the same thing as edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Here's how it went. Agadant removed four references and changed it to 'organisation'. Then Tarc changed it back to 'company'. And then Agadant changed it back again. All within forty-five minutes. No, I'm sorry - this isn't the way things should go. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not what happened at all. And I never wrote in organisation. Only left it as edited by someone else temporarily in a previous edit and then changed it to company - which is correct. I had put in the references myself and brought up removal and my reasons why on the talk page.

I made one edit and one talk page comment about said edit. Do not lump me in with any sort of "edit warring" please, that is the height of intellectual dishonesty. It's like NBA refs who don't bother to investigate what actually happened in a foul situation and just give technical fouls all around. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, I'll remove the protection. But I will be watching this page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I sincerely hope that I will not look like a fool in 12 hours (at least not more than usual). VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean and why post it here? Well, it seems clear to me but that has always been my conclusion of what is taking place here. It is a futile effort by me as first indicated by Keithbob when he asked me to step aside and let others do their work on the article. A foregone conclusion. Everyone here has their assigned roles and mine is to exit, huh? Agadant (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It means that I requested that the page be unprotected because of my optimism that the people working on this article (a group that includes myself) would be able to edit in a way that avoided the problems that caused the protection in the first place, and that I hope that optimism is not misplaced. It was not intended to target any individual. VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OKay, thanks. I plan to work on the lede and have posted a new section below. Your stated here: "The lead section of an article is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the article, so it tends to get more careful scrutiny." The current lead looks like it was written by an elementary school student. It definitely needs work and information. Agadant (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Policing by private companies

Internet "policing" by a private company is a valid description as referred to in this thesis from University of Leeds. [4] I think the 5 sources, I included to back it up look cumbersome in the lead sentence. I think it should be accepted without them. If anyone disagrees I will put some or all of them back. Agadant (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your sources use the term in a self-referential manner, i.e. the Village voice putting it in quotes, ""Internet policing specialists" to quote how this organization sees itself. Sorry, but "internet policing" is not an industry or a job description; it is hype. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. I furnished a thesis showing it is performed by public or private companies. I think what the company is called by newspapers, interviewers etc. is as valid as you saying it is not an industry and that it is hype. I'm not sure you are the ultimate authority here even over the Univesity of Leeds? Agadant (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking past your sarcasm, the University of Leeds (especially not one particular thesis) is not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia. I agree that the 5 sources that were up before tended to be self-referential in nature and did not adequately establish what should probably be a pretty high bar for such a strong term. I like the more recent "compromise" version per Agadant better. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@VQuakr, maybe a little sarcastic, but being said to intentionally promote "hype" and, all else, I've been said to do on here is a little tiresome! I've seen the company called "internet policing company" so many times by newspapers, radio interviews, etc. that it is one I'm sure not many would even question or think twice of, much less revert over. I actually wouldn't have ever thought there was a high bar for such a simple, descriptive term. Here's this Wiki article: private police that refers to security guards for stores, etc. It may not mention internet police but does establish that there is such an industry as policing in the private sector and would relate to Web Sheriff as security guards but on the internet. What is the big deal about internet policing term, I don't get it? Agadant (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your frustration is understandable. Things seemed to have spiraled a bit in the last 10 days or so, but I think it is still very possible to restore a more productive editing environment. One important first step will be for everyone to stop sniping.

The question is not whether the concept of private police exists; it unambiguously does. The question is whether that term can be neutrally and verifiably applied to the subject of this article. I understand that using this phrase was uncontroversial from your perspective when you first used it; but once another editor expressed disagreement over it, the term is no longer uncontroversial. The lead section of an article is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the article, so it tends to get more careful scrutiny.

In general and in my opinion, the heart of this debate about whether the article should reflect how the company characterizes itself (either through primary sources or self-referential in nature as Tarc mentioned), or whether the POV of the article should reflect a more third-party view. The overwhelming consensus based on feedback from the NPOV board and here is that tone should be more third-party in nature. This is why this phrase and other similar phrases have the potential to be important. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look back to the Dec. 2008 creation of the article, you'll see that the term "internet police" actually originated there at the beginning on this article, it wasn't through my editing. creating article. And that editor didn't seem to be a fan! And if you look back, at the history, you'll see there are only 3 or 4 entries by other editors except vandalism or POV negative unsourced comments, etc. and a few Bots until March 27, 2011 when it was turned in by Luisarfs for a 3O opinion (ruling: Not an Advert) Luisarfs has established a residency on here and in a strictly negative capacity. As I've said time and time again, his very few other edits other than to Web Sheriff, deleting half the article or putting tags based on one word, such as "Propaganda" or "Advert" are to a competitor in Portugal. his contributions I've been admonished for using the word "defend" but if I hadn't, it would still be the vandalized version put up on Rip-Off Report. [5]. Agadant (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the origin of the phrase in this article. Since the 3O a few months ago, a strong consensus has developed at the NPOV noticeboard that the article needs some attention. On articles with contested contents, it is more productive to focus on edits and content rather than other editors. I am still reasonably satisfied with the lead sentence as it is; what are other people's thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I try hard myself to concentrate on edits and content and conclude: There have been many edits lately and there is little content left. The fact that it was judged to be "Not an advert" in March 2011 is important, because it was by a very experienced admin., who I'm very sure would not have ruled that if it had been so outrageously POV, as it is now accused of being. I don't know why the editor changed their mind later but I think it was because of thinking I was COI editing because of a misunderstanding of my edits to a band they assumed was a Web Sheriff client. The band was not, in fact, and I took out the content to remove the controversy I had inadvertently created. Some of the sections deleted here and called POV and promotional are included and worded similarly in even FA articles. When I read comments like this one by Cameron Scott:"This article reads like a press release - it needs the flamethrowers turning on it". Definition The flamethrower is a potent weapon with great psychological impact upon unprepared soldiers, inflicting a particularly horrific death. Well, that doesn't exactly give me a good feeling about the fairness and maturity of some of the editing that has been allowed. In fact, any one is allowed on here now, even Luisarfs with no questions or reverts. The reverts only happen when I try to make an edit. So what it looks like to me is that the article and myself have been put on trial and found guilty and shall now be taken to task. I even pointed out that the editor who put the claim of "Reads like an advert" archived the 3O opinion at the same time, looking very suspicious to me, but apparently deemed unimportant to anyone else. Discussions of deletions have taken place other than the talk page and are quickly implemented, leaving the article's sourcing and wording the worse for wear. I really believe the editing here lately has been very POV and emotionally charged and no one has even taken my concerns seriously as the majority rules . Which I know, doesn't mean that other editors might not have a more favourable view of the article. They are just not getting involved and who can blame them? I will state my views even though not appreciated or considered. If I'm wrong, show me so. Agadant (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A PhD thesis is an unpublished document and also original research it should not be used for sourcing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The non-RS thesis refers to actual crimes, specifically "fraud", (as opposed to civil crimes) in its abstract. There is no indication that the student referred to "policing" as this article used it, as "Web Sheriff" is primarily interested in "civil crimes". It makes abolutely no mention of "Web Sheriff" in its entire content. Thus it rather works against the use of "policing" in this article as a simple matter of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, I was using the example in the thesis referring to your comment: "Policing" can also mean "general cleaning" of an area (although usually used as a military term). Not exactly a common usage in a WP article, however. And, as used in the article, substantially misleading". I was only giving it as an example here on the talk page to show that policing is used for private companies doing internet work. I never would have used it for a source, never tried and never said I would. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that. And I think Web Sheriff should be referred to as a company not an organization. I hurriedly left that description (but didn't endorse it) when I put "internet policing" with the 5 references in the article (the article was locked soon after) and last night I came back and changed organization to company I don't see how that could possibly be a source of controversy. Agadant

(talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, a colorful term that the company uses to play up its self-styled Wild West imagery does not belong in an encyclopedia article. "Anti-piracy" as the lead is now is just fine. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is why do you all care so much about the policing thing? You're very passionate about excluding this, aren't you? I didn't write this in here... the very unenthused creator of the article did. December 2008 version But nevertheless, I did think it was representative as a good description of the company as I have seen it called that in many highly reputable newspapers and magazines. (Your POV us showing here Tarc, but do any of you ever bother to try hiding that fact?) Agadant (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The lede according to WP:Lead does not adequately represent the company - but of course, it will soon as more and more information that was not even close to POV is taken out of it. All links were taken out of the tiny, bare-to-the-minimum lead. Why is that? I notice that this company article has 3 nice paragraphs for the lede and includes internal links. Bridgewater Associates and history - Oh and it also has the word "unique" in the lead, which was removed from this one and called "weasel" word. I believe that is when Cameron Scott referred to my giving the company a BJ for including the word. Agadant (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Client list

I see Keithbob has decided that a company that operates for its clients can not have a client section. Agadant (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't all companies operate for their clients? It does not necessarily follow that the clients need to be listed out in the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, doesn't necessarily follow but it is informative content for readers and it shouldn't be excluded and called POV, in the case of this company. Some record label company's articles have similar listing of recording artists. WMG artists And what do you think of the lede questions I posed? Agadant (talk)

FA article for guide

The Million Dollar Homepage This article is a good example for article formatting, section heads, etc.. Pixel Sales would be equivalent to client section in Web Sheriff and Media Attention would be similar to In the Media in Web Sheriff. Agadant (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) It has a nice little write-up about the founder too and with a quote from him in quote box. Really good article, very informative and nicely put together! Agadant (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A more direct comparison would be a FA page about a company rather than one about a web site. Delrina seems like a pretty good example to me. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Delrina sells software, so really doesn't have much similarities. I don't think you will find any FA article that is exactly the same type of company as this. I've looked for guidance and formatting purposes, WP policies, etc.. The Million Dollar Homepage comes closest and serves as a good illustration of the fact that FA articles have such information as In the Media (Media Attention), Pixel Sales (clients) informative founding information, etc. as in the Web Sheriff article of a few weeks ago.Agadant (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BitTorrent File Sharers

The Claim that BT File Sharers "are much more resistant to a friendly approach" is without warrant (at least as is) and not addressed by appropriate research (or really any) in the cited source. While I am sure that they may receive a demand letter, threat, or other sort of legal process if they do not reply/respond to a "friendly" approach, this is a broad and damning/defamatory claim about what is likely a quite broad group. -Unsigned left by 67.11.58.88

Update- my mistake, I read it as conditional (those who are not responsive), that is corrected (BT users simply may receive a demand). While this may be prefaced on the company's belief that they are resistant, that is an unsupported claim (I understand it is being used as a justification for the action, but the source does not support that BT users are in fact resistant). My latest edit is incorrect IF the company does reach out before sending such notice, which does not seem accurate based on the source/previous phrasing). -Unsigned left by 67.11.58.88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.58.88 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving past discussions of NPOV

A Bot was sent in today to archive past NPOV discussions Bot archiving. There has never before been Bot archiving on this article! It was most importantly once again hiding from immediate view the fact that this article was found to not be an advert in March, 2011 by HelloAnnyong.

Third opinion: Aside from the Clients section being a total mess, this article isn't really an advertisement. It's well sourced and doesn't have any particularly poor text. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it rightly as the editor who put this up before the board had done so with the premise that: "Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year..." Therefore those discussions should be right out there for all to see. It is an attempt to subvert a fair observance of what is going on here by any outside interested parties. I was reverted by Tarc here - WOW - in six minutes time, providing further evidence that the article has been unfairly singled out for special prejudiced treatment by a selective group of POV editors backed up by the NPOV Noticeboard - of all things. Agadant (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an Archive link at the top of the page so one can browse it, and there is also a search box if that is easier. We archive talk pages here at the Wikipedia after a certain mount of time so as to not make the page overly lengthy and difficult to navigate. In this case, threads that had not received a comment since June were archived. Please stop making ever tiny issue with this page into some gargantuan war of epic, hysterical proportions. Honestly, if you pulled these kind of antics somewhere more hot-button and closely scrutinized, such as an article regarding Barack Obama or the Israeli-Palestine topic area, you most certainly would have been topic-banned by now. Cool your jets, calm down, and stop flying off the handle every time someone disagrees with an opinion of yours. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)