Talk:Web Sheriff/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Current problems with article

Following up to this comment above: I've left this article alone for some time now. Looking through it now, it continues to have the same problems: promotion, undue detail, use of poor or unreliable sources, improper use of primary sources, peacock terms and general puffery. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss article content, not each other, please Nobody Ent 17:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A red flag goes up! Ronz, you left this article over a year ago, after making vague, unspecific charges and edits here at that time. Now, an anon IP who has made just 3 edits since 2007, appears with charges of NPOV against an article on a company that deals with disgruntled internet downloaders every day because of copyright infringement problems, whose founder has been called "the most hated man on the internet, as a title in an interview. An hour after the anon IP comments here, you once again make your appearance with your charges of many but unspecific problems on the article. Let's look at the promotion charge, for instance. That's unfounded and insulting. Have you or your fellow editors been noticing that I have been working on the article for the latest Van Morrison album? So, you're making it appear that I am promoting Web Sheriff and that there is a connection between my editing on that article and my previous editing on this one. Van Morrison did use Web Sheriff for his previous album to this 2012 one, and before I ever edited Web Sheriff. I have not seen any indication that he has used Web Sheriff to protect the current album. Search the internet and see if you can find one connection. So your charge of promotion is unfounded. I do not work for Web Sheriff or Van Morrison and the two are not connected at all. I edit Van Morrison articles because no one else does and I believe his work is important enough to be represented on Wikipedia. In the same manner I edited on this Web Sheriff article. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Wow! Thanks for making the ip's point all the more clear. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Oh yeah, how's that? Your charges and replies are always so short and unexplained. You seem to think you don't have to be specific about anything. Is that typical on WP? Shouldn't you be able to if you really have something of substance to say and if you have valid complaints? Agadant (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So either fix it or make specific suggestions for changes. Nobody Ent 17:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like editors are off to a good start. Let's see how it goes for a bit. Does someone have time to go through all the sources? It still looks like there are a lot of questionable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

There was a recent discussion at ANI regarding the editing of this article. The discussion has now been archived and I'm providing a link here in case it is needed for future reference. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I think it's time someone started looking at the sources. Many of them seem lack merit. And, as pointed here no one can edit this article without serious difficulty. So, here's the case for the first 2 sources I checked.

32: Giacobbi, John (11 September 2005). "How we can clean up the internet". The Mail on Sunday. "I closed down two particularly heinous sites over the course of the past year as part of The Mail on Sunday's campaign to highlight the problems we all face with an unregulated internet. In the first case, we managed to shut down the horrific asphyxiation site at the centre of the Jane Longhurst murder trial and in the second we closed a site dedicated to showing the beheading of Western hostages in Iraq."

33: "Shut the evil websites that are peddling perversion". Yorkshire Post. 9 November 2005. Retrieved 11 January 2012.

The quote from 33 in the Yorkshire Post is: "In the first case we managed to close down the horrific site at the centre of the Jane Longhurst murder trial and in the second case we also closed down a site dedicated to showing the beheading of Western hostages in Iraq."

So, the 2 sources are all but identical. They both come from John Giacobbi. In response to User:Agadant's comment "the statement by founder about the two web sites closed was printed in the same reliable source newspaper the company did the work for." The Yorkshire Post did, indeed, start their own "Dark Side of the Web" campaign. And, in all the other DSOTW articles John Giacobbi and Web Sheriff remain completely absent. Which leads me to believe that he was not hired to do any work, rather he was paid to write an op-ed in support of their campaign.

The 2 sources are cited from this statment: "In the same year, in work done for the same newspaper, the company also closed down the extreme pornographic strangulation sites at the center of the notorious Jane Longhurst murder case." Doing some more research on this bold claim. I found some BBC articles. In the first - Victim's sister fights web crime - neither Web Sheriff or John Giacobbi are mentioned. In the second article - MP backs internet porn campaign - neither Web Sheriff or John Giacobbi are mentioned. And, in the third article - 'Two years' to close porn sites - they interviewed Mr. Jacobbi and wrote that "His company Web Sheriff has already disabled one of the violent pornographic website's billing pages, so no new users can pay to view the images." This alone is contrary to the current Wikipedia article and, furthermore, there's no corroboration in any other article that I could find (where John Giacobbi wasn't an interviewee or the writer).

tl;dr There's been contention in the past with edits. There are 2 sources that both come from the founder making extraordinary claims. Other sites don't give him credit (unless they ask him about it).

PurplePinapple (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Who are you? Both you and the IP who claimed to question the RS have never made another edit on Wiki! Which WP editor's sock puppet? In just three hours you have done all this research on this article and have some editing skills?
2. Giacobbi, John (11 September 2005). "How we can clean up the internet". The Mail on Sunday. "I closed down two particularly heinous sites over the course of the past year as part of The Mail on Sunday's campaign"... This claim is published in the newspaper he did the work for. Doesn't seem extraordinary and doesn't seem like he would made a false claim to the very newspaper he is speaking about! You chose the other newspaper "The Yorkshire Post" to try to degrade the reliability of the source and the claim? The dates on the articles that you link to are March 2004. The two articles that are used as sources are dated Sept. and Nov. 2005. So therefore, there would not have been mention in 2004 to work done by the Web Sheriff company in the next year. Agadant (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Where is the serious difficulty you claim in editing here? Every long term editor (like myself) should be able to refute an edit they feel done in error by an IP who has never edited before and who questioned a reliable source. I would question how they know more about reliable sources than I do, since I have been editing for 7 years? Agadant (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not be pressured to disclose their identities, and not on an article talk page such as this one. See Wikipedia:Coi#Avoid_outing --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There was no pressure for the editor to disclose their identity. How could I possibly pressure them just by asking the obvious and pointing out what I would have to look like a newbie to ignore? Agadant (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Shall we take it to ANI yet again? --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

1. It took a loooong time to find any evidence of the Mail on Sunday's campaign (which they never named). However, I never found any reference that they hired Mr. Giacobbi or the Web Sheriff. (Perhaps you could point it out?)
2. The article "How Blunkett CAN shut down the websites that killed my sister." mentions that Giacobbi said it can take between 24 and 48 hours to shut down such a site (the same quote from the 3rd BBC article above). And, in the article "The Net's Closing; Victory for the MoS as Police Announce Probe into Internet Payment Firms That Allow Vile Porn Sites to Flourish" I don't see any credit given to Web Sheriff or Mr. Giacobbi. I don't have access to the full article. Nevertheless, the except only has him mentioning that PayPal doesn't use enough due diligence for which sites they process payments (background quote).
3. In all the articles I've seen it appears that Mr. Giacobbi was used for background quotes rather than being an integral part in shuttering these websites. The Mail on Sunday only declare "success" once the National Crime Squad gets involved. PurplePinapple (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles you have mentioned were from 2004, not 2005. The Mail on Sunday published Giacobbi's statement that his company closed down the websites for them. That seems to offer confirmation that the statement is true by that very fact. I'll edit the article to state that Giacobbi was quoted. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources, again

On 19 July 2013, User:Aprock made a deletion and referred to unreliable sources as one of the reasons for his edit.

The deleted text was: "RLSLOG, called one of the world's most popular release news sites, was taken offline in January 2009 through efforts by Web Sheriff. The site was shut down by complaints by Web Sheriff to its web site host and bandwidth provider." The sources used that Aprock says are unreliable are: Torrentfreak - this source This blog was already questioned at the Reliable Sources noticeboard in a similar type of usage. Reliable sources Noticeboard Archive 28 I'm surprised aprock did not find this in the article links. I'm not very savvy on such stuff but I did before I ever used it. It was deemed a mildly close call but acceptable. The other source used was Digital Media Wire as here. That seems reliable from the information on their about us page. Agadant (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN concern

Per the talk page guidelines, talk pages are for discussing article content not editor behavior.

Yes, I'm an AC - having seen this article with amusement and the commentary for what, 2 years now, it is clear this article is captive of a single editor enamored with either the company, the authority over this article, or something else. The reluctance of the community to ban an editor meets with a single editors overwhelming need to control this article and shape it in a particular light - non-stop "close calls" and "acceptable but barely" and constant minor tweaks in response to legitimate concerns from other editors belie the problem: this article is captive of a single editor with less than a NPOV. Boooooooooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.184.17 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

@Liftarn: This page is not about Taio Cruz, stop trying to spread your personal agenda across wikipedia. Stick to the topic. — Shaken And Stirred (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC).