User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

thekohser
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&oldid=96734143

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
Cell: 302.463.1354
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Erik Moeller-4
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.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Luna-4
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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Matthew Brown-5
On 12/28/06, Luna <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by thekohser
On 28/12/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&oldid=96734143
>
> 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.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Stephen Bain
On 12/28/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> 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.

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Luna-4
On 12/28/06, Luna <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Matthew Britton-2
Steve Bennett wrote:

> 3) Virgin Unite creates an article on itself, totally above board,
> using its own name

Above board or not, this has always been discouraged and generally
recognized as a bad idea; see [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]].

-Gurch
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by thekohser
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> 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)

There was no real hint of 'conflict of interest' about [[Virgin Unite]]. Someone seems to have assumed that User:Virgin Unite was editing for the organisation; and that the few words posted were detrimental. Why? The nomination for AfD had no merit.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 12/28/06, Luna <[hidden email]> 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
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.)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by thekohser
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> 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.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by thekohser
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&oldid=96734143
>
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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Ryan Wetherell
In reply to this post by thekohser
On 12/27/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> wrote:

> How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&oldid=96734143
>
> 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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

The Cunctator
I just don't like the ad.

On 12/28/06, Ryan Wetherell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 12/27/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&oldid=96734143
> >
> > 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Anthony DiPierro
On 12/28/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Matthew Britton-2
Anthony wrote:
> On 12/28/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by Alphax (Wikipedia email)
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> > 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.)

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.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by thekohser
On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

Death Phoenix
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12