Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Intention to close

Note that this page is one of two discussions concerning Wikipedia:Commercial editing. I closed the other discussion yesterday, at WT:Commercial editing, since the opposition was unanimous and strongly worded, and since it was the fifth talk page with a simultaneous discussion on roughly the same question. I'm leaning in the direction of closing the discussion on this page; although the discussion itself has been productive, with new ideas and increased participation, there's a long-standing consensus against opening a fourth simultaneous vote on roughly the same question, and almost all the votes since early on 4 November have been opposes (and the recent voting is even more lopsided when you consider the opposes at WT:Commercial editing). I have no objection at all if anyone wants to repeat their comments here in one or more of the other discussions, where more people will be reading your comments. Your thoughts are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Dank, although I supported this proposal, it appears as though there is far more opposition than support. Having all these proposals open is confusing editors, so I think we should close this one. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The fork of this talk page was confusing; I've merged them together above. – SJ + 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Dank, can you clarify what you'd close this in favor of? It looks like you'll close Sock puppetry/Employees soon, and Paid editing policy proposal was merely the first draft of this proposal. That leaves this proposal and No paid advocacy, but they have different content and accordingly different debate/participants.

Overall, the debate suggests that a new policy might not gain consensus at this stage. I'd like to echo others' suggestions of creating a Wikiproject on advocacy editing instead. There are improvements that could be made without drastically altering the editing landscape, such as promoting WP:PER with a link on the edit page, or preventing abusive editing practices. There are likely many other constructive improvements that could gain broad consensus in that context. Proxyma (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave this alone a couple of days and wait for comments, and I want to see if anyone volunteers to help close per my request at WP:AN (with a copy on my talk page). If you're willing to put on a "neutral" hat for a moment (that is, ignore for a moment the question of the best solution to the problem, and consider what result the wider community would be most likely to accept, given the votes and rationales so far, in the various proposals): how would you close this? If you wouldn't find consensus for this proposal, what encouragement would you want to give the supporters? (Btw, if I'm understanding your question ... I think it's too early to close the "Paid editing policy proposal", even though the creators of this page intended for discussion to move here. For whatever reason, this page didn't catch on. That page has a lot of meat to it, and I'd really appreciate having more closers, more time, and a wider discussion before a close is attempted.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dank sure I can put on my neutral hat :). I'll let you be the judge of my success in doing so. I'd close Sock puppetry/Employees per that discussion, and let Jehochman convert this one into an essay as he intends. If any other proposals still have active debate (I haven't been following them very closely) then I agree you shouldn't close them.

As far as encouraging proposal supporters, I think it depends on making tangible progress on this issue. Even most "oppose" voters would probably agree that there's room for improvement, they just didn't enjoy the proposals themselves. That's why I like the idea of a wikiproject as a path forward, since there are likely more targeted improvements that could be made, and creating a standing wikiproject on advocacy would be a significant and permanent accomplishment. By starting with a project instead of a proposal, you'd take some of the heat out of the room. Proxyma (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

my summary of the discussion on this and similar pages is:

1. WP is basically and volunteer project, and most . though not all, volunteers here are very uncomfortable with the presence of paid editors
2. Almost everyone is of the opinion that it is much more difficult for a paid editor to write a proper article tha follows the rules about CPOV and advocacy, and shows proper balance.
3. Most people are of the opinion that paid editors often accept assignments for topics that are not really suitable for WP, and tend to stretch the rules about notability and reliable sources
4. Most people recognize that some paid editors do it properly, by using only talk pages according to the Brightline rule.
5. Many but by no means all of us think that some paid editors can write properly directly in article space, even if most paid editors cannot.
6. Most of us recognize that it is in practice impossible to identify all paid editing, or to enforce a rule that requires self-identification. Many, probably most of us, would want to enforce a rule if it were possible to do so.
7. Most of us recognize that enforcement is limited by incompatibility between the need to detect COI and the rules permitting anonymous editing and prohibiting outing, but few of us are willing to change or abandon the relevant rules.
8. There is no agreement about whether paid or unpaid advocacy is worse, but everyone agrees that neither of them are acceptable.
9. As a consequence, most of us recognize we have no real way of dealing with the problem except vigilance about improperly written articles and article content. Some of us extend this to a willingness to judge only by article content, and ignore who is doing the editing, but many of us still want to do whatever limitation of COI editing is possible,

my own opinion about the proposal as it currently appears here is that it is thoroughly impractical, and will lead to selective prosecution and increase the likelihood of clever people trying to successfully evade it, whereas a more permissive rule is likely to have a greater degree of compliance. I sympathize very much with what the proposer is trying to accomplish, but it cannot be done this way. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I've marked this as an essay. Please leave it that way without any ugly templates. Okay? Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the closing, agree with marking as essay, agree with not needing any more templates, disagree with claim that templates are ugly (I think templates are rather lovely), disagree with parts of DGG's 9-point "summary of the discussion on this and similar pages". Details below. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My take on the 9 points above is:

1. While some volunteers here are indeed very uncomfortable with the presence of paid editors in particular, other volunteers question the reasoning behind this and argue that, say, religious and political advocacy editors cause far more disruption.
2. Whether "it is much more difficult for a paid editor to write a proper article that follows the rules about CPOV and advocacy, and shows proper balance" is not something that a talk page discussion can address. It requires mind-reading and again there are those who argue that religious and political advocacy editors are as bad or worse.
3. Knowing whether "paid editors often accept assignments for topics that are not really suitable for WP, and tend to stretch the rules about notability and reliable sources" would require a study of a reasonable and unbiased sample of paid edits. The problem is that the sample is biased. Some unknown percentage of the ones who wouldn't stretch the rules if they directly edited are already voluntarily making talk page requests instead of directly creating/editing articles. Some unknown percentage of the stealth paid editors stick to the rules well enough that we don't detect them. That leaves the unknown percentage who are stupid enough and ham-handed enough that they end up on a noticeboard, and of those we really only consider those who fight the community and ignore those who simply stop editing under that name.
4. No issues; DGG accurately summarized the discussion.
5. No issues
6. No issues
7. No issues
8. No issues with the first half. The second half is problematical. Everyone agrees? Advocacy is unacceptable? Most of these discussions have been about advocacy editing, not about advocacy on user or article talk pages. And what definition of advocacy are we using here and how does it differ from having a COI?
9. Finally, the claim that "most of us recognize we have no real way of dealing with the problem except vigilance about improperly written articles and article content" is a conclusion not supported by the discussion. Clearly many here think that there is way of dealing with the problem, even if they cannot agree on what it is.

In my opinion, both DGG's 9 points and my response should be labeled as our opinions, and we should get a summary by an uninvolved editor that simply states what the respondents to this proposal accepted and or rejected. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I have been careful to say most, or many, not all. I agree with almost all of your comments. Indeed, I am one of those who think advocacy for a cause to be at least equally dangerous. That paid editors accept borderline topics has been admitted by one of the most prolific. That volunteer editors do also, is apparent to everyone. And some paid editors are exceptionally cautious to make certain their subject is notable, more than most volunteer editors would be. It is clear to me that the move to higher standards of paid editing is being in some part driven by the most responsible among the paid editors, who do not want their work tarnished by the reckless or incompetent. The only thing where we disagree, is that I continue to maintain that the basic principle of NPOV is to avoid advocacy; if some would disagree with maintaining NPOV, there is real question whether the community will tolerate editing on such a basis--this is not the same thing as saying that advocacy is intrinsically wrong--it can be a most valuable contribution to society, and just like other valuable contributions such as original research or creative art, to be pursued elsewhere. And I think most of us do realize; that we keep trying to find solutions is a worthy endeavor, but who among us really believes that we will? I can say I would be extremely pleased for my skepticism to be proved wrong here. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was intended by Dank for discussion of his/her intent to close this topic. It's pretty clear the process of debate broke down, so I'm not sure a summary of consensus is needed here or likely to be accurate. Proxyma (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the discussion has been, for the most part, cordial, with parties listening and responding to each other, so I don't believe it has broken down. It has been drifting a bit, so I hope it can be made more effective with some guidance. isaacl (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fair. To clarify, by "process of debate" I was referring to structural issues, not tone of debate. There have been too many competing proposals, and the provenance of the proposals has been unclear. Rather than debating yes/no on whatever proposal an editor sees fit to present (correct me if there was any vetting of which I'm unaware), there should at minimum be a drafting process with some consensus testing before making a serious proposal. Or, as I'd argue, create a wikiproject which can create a pipeline of best practices -> targeted reforms. Proxyma (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As for drifting, not really. I am sure that DGG appreciates it when someone reads his work and comments -- I know I do -- and it won't turn into a long back-and-forth because we pretty much agree on everything. Plus, there is no compelling reason to stay focused on the proposal now that it is an essay. As for a drafting process (which is also topic drift, but well worth discussing) multiple proposals on essentially the same topic are pretty rare, and I don't think the community would support any new policies that would restrict the multiple proposals because the policy would also restrict the normal proposals too much. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Similiar to Proxyma, I was not referring to DGG's comments, but to the structure of the discussion. Perhaps out of deference to the initial creators of each proposal, so far the discussion hasn't proceeded in one of the various possible ways forward. I hope that a little guidance will help matters progress. isaacl (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What about the coexistence?

I'm not a guru in wikipedia: I edit when I can. I found this topic important enough for wikipedia that I've read both talk pages and the 4 proposals in hands. Now time for a humble contribution on this matter.

This is what I've grasp from the discussion:

1. It is nonsense for wikipedia to control who is against COI: it is a waste of time and it does not address the content; it addresses the editors.
2. For practical purposes, Wikipedia cannot enforce users to comply with COI since anyone can edit anonymously.
3. Wikipedia is about content's quality, which is addressed in its content policies. The less bureaucracy affecting the editors, the better.
4. Paid editors are inevitable. The more attention wikipedia attracts, the more paid editors join.
5. Paid editors have time for any war, which regular editors don't. Regular editors cannot effort the time fighting these wars.
6. Paid editors are paid by companies. I suspect that the bulk of the contributions (or at least the dangerous ones) are from outsourcing: companies paid to edit wikipedia (and others) to promote the client's image.
7. Companies win their reputation by doing a good job for the client, which in some situations is against what wikipedia advocates (e.g. unbiased content).

The problem I see is that, contrary to what drives wikipedia editors - common good - economic incentives drives advertising companies.

So far, the discussion in manly focused in controlling: ways of advocating what you should and what you shouldn't and how to control if you don't. However, I argue that the practical consequences of this (e.g. in this editing policy proposal) are very limited because the economical incentive for a company, or its paid editors, to follow policies are very small if they are being paid.

What I suggest here is to consider a discussion that focus on the coexistence. How can wikipedia profit from paid editions, and how can companies profit from wikipedia? How can both profits coexist? In this sense, I was thinking on a stackoverflow-like reputation:

Wikipedia has a list of companies that pay editors (with the list of editors working for them) and publicly shares a measure of the company's quality within wikipedia - reputation -, according to which extent their editions are in favor of what wikipedia advocates for its content.

Any advertising company that wants clients profit from having an official measure of trust in wikipedia since it can use it to promote itself. Wikipedia profit from this because it can be generate an economic value to the company, i.e. it can drive the company's behaviour according to what it already advocates.

The tricky part is to choose a good set of measures that represent good and bad behaviour. For instance, consecutive counter-reverts (revert of revert) measures a typical bad behaviour. This measures can always be tricked, as everything, specially if the company only uses the editors accounts for "good" editions. But this means that companies can win points on reverting "bad" editions from registered users (anonymous don't count to avoid auto-inflation of reputation).

The idea behind this is the idea of reputation in stackoverflow, on which users gain/lose reputation by their behaviour on the community. While this is not required for wikipedia editors, it seems to me that it is becoming required for advertising companies paying editors to edit wikipedia because the problem I stated earlier: companies are not driven by common good. Thus, wikipedia's community should have a say on the company's behaviour within the community.

This of course does not address the problem completely, but it provides a starting point for discussing to what extent shouldn't wikipedia try to coexist with paid editors by formalising a symbiotic relation between an advertising company and the wikipedia community.

Does this make any sense?Jorgecarleitao (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am undecided whether I am pro or contra paid editing, but if it would get allowed, something like the above mentioned rating or confirmation of the edits (like in the German WP for new users) might be a good idea. --Saimondo (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Jorgecarleitao, indeed it does make a lot of sense to work with the grain of human incentives rather than getting splinters in your thumb from advocating impractical solutions.

Let' leave this zero sum game behind and try to get into a win-win situation as our starting point.

In theory a state run restaurant with state certified chefs, state trained and chosen waiters and décor ratified by the best designers the bureaucrats of the restaurant commission can find should always beat Luigi's Trattoria "Mom & Pop" operation hands down. That's not to mention standards of hygiene. However, recent East German and Cuban experience seem to indicate that the nature of humanity sometimes defies the best laid plans of men... --118.93nzp (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be a tiny bit bureaucratic as every rule, but if the regulation is worth it.. Jorgecarleitao was talking about a pretty common ebay/ amazon/web 2.0-like rating system and I was talking about how it is on WP semi-protected pages in the English WP or in the German WP in general, or say the Two-man rule also used in business. How impractical can it be when it is practiced every day in this big scale? I don´t see this connecting to a state run restaurant, DDR and Cuba. Regards--Saimondo (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just add a line to COI. This is creep

• Oppose any of these proposed new guidelines. This is basically a small print issue that could be mentioned on COI. We need to start reducing the number and length of rules and guidelines on wikipedia, it is counter-productive. Lesion (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• May I also add that this is the second time that this issue has been spammed on people's watchlists. If I click dismiss on one of these topics I do not expect to have to do so again. Lesion (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What undermines Wikipedia most? Comment on 2nd Draft

The new draft is an improvement, but the section on allowed editing for gain is too weak. At least one current offer on the Reward Board sets up the most basic of conflict of interests. For a company to offer a reward for editing a Wikipedia article on that company is a blatant COI. Think about it in terms of, say, a television network news division. Should Wikipedia have a lower bar? Any reward to a Wikipedia editor to work on an article about a subject of financial interest to the offerer is the most basic COI. It's like a reporter being offer gifts to work on a story. Or, say, Disney World offering (which they do) to provide a camera crew, editing facilities, and satellite transmission to a news organization doing a story on Disney World. That's a basic conflict of interest that some organizations refuse, but that many accept. The phrase the encyclopedia that anyone can edit should mean that any individual can edit. And unless you think corporations and other commercial entities are individuals in the realm of ideas and information, corporations should not be allowed to edit directly or by proxy; in other words, a sock puppet. -Neonorange (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The reward board is in the process of being deactivated and marked historical. Check it out. That's a result of the present discussions. There is a benefit to document everything that's going on, make it visible and ask hard questions, like, "Would we be better without this?" Jehochman ^Talk 03:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the comparison to television news divisions or similar real-world activities. I believe the main legitimate category where a company may want to edit an article about itself is similar to when an individual would--that is, the article is inaccurate or POV or otherwise needs fixing, but Wikipedians don't have the motivation to fix it. Television news divisions don't have someone come in off the street and stick a random statement in a news broadcast that nobody wants to fix except for the subject and that nobody is responsible for. Only Wikipedia works that way. That's why BLP subjects are permitted to edit articles about themselves, and that's why companies should be. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Divide and conquer?

I hope these forks don't divide and conquer the movement to get a policy in place. The forks contain the same use of "affected" that Jehochman complained about (by tagging it as vague) in the original!

The massive amount of bad new policy in the "No harassment of editors" section feels designed to torpedo the policy. Glad it's not in the 3rd (AKA 2nd) draft. --Elvey (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just made it 4. :) (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Employees) This is based on my comment above. Wnt (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to keep creating new drafts by refactoring the previous one, taking into account all the feedback. Once a discussion gets to a certain length fresh editors won't bother to read it all, and will be discouraged from commenting. By iterating through drafts we can keep getting feedback and keep making it better. Simply editing the proposal continuously isn't workable because then we don't really know what version people were looking at when they made their comment. If the number of proposals gets too large, we can remove the ones with the least support from the template. Eventually we should get a consensus version. Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have all these proposals live at once. There now seems to be FOUR simultaneous discussions. Let the active one close before introducing a new proposal, this really is getting too much. SpinningSpark 01:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Make that FIVE. SpinningSpark 01:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Essay

The reason I labeled this an essay is that it does not appear to have sufficient support, yet, to be policy. As an essay people can easily refer to it when having a discussion about paid editing. If eventually the essay evolves and gains more support, it might become policy. That is a process that could take an indefinite amount of time. Thank you all for your comments. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

[Sorry if this is a stupid question, but] Does this mean that all the recent COI/NPOV/ADVOCACY/PAID discussions have run their course, or are there still some smouldering embers that we should be watchlisting? If so, which ones? - Pointillist (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Another question to Jehochman: since they remain unchanged from previous drafts, does this mean that it is your preference for the significant restrictions on expert editing in the "Experts and editing at work" section (everything after its third sentence) to become policy? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree No real support for policy (here, or elsewhere for that matter. There seem to be multiple discussions on this topic, all slowly circling the same drain). Bfigura ^(talk) 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

+989 karma points for that observation.... - Pointillist (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I will comply with the request not to place "ugly templates" such as Template:failed if all policy-like statements are removed. This includes the opening "editing for profit, is not allowed on Wikipedia" and "must not edit affected articles directly". The page even claims it is a policy at one point. It also incorrectly represents the sockpuppetry policy. Close associates are not treated as the same person; what policy forbids is rather "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia". New editors are otherwise welcome here, associates or not. SpinningSpark 10:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  Point taken. I've corrected the policy-like statements. As for the meat puppetry segment, please feel free to edit it for precision. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Editors not communicating well, for the most part

AFAICT, this was advertised as being a policy RFC, and therefore, needs to be clearly backed down from that position. Perhaps the clearest thing to do would be to add Template:failed immediately and then to withdraw the template if it is made unambiguously clear that although this was advertised as possible policy it is not. As it sounds, to advertise and then downgrade (but attempt to keep, at the same location) is misleading—a situation we could do without. —Sladen (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC) + now done in [1]; with misleading {{nutshell}} removed; and {[tlx|essay}} removed for the time being aswell. —Sladen (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree with that. It was clearly the intention to use the page as an ersatz policy link in discussions. It is very important that such links do not lead to a page that appears to actually be policy when it is not. SpinningSpark 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC) This is clearly marked as an essay. Please do not vandalize it again, as happened here, or I will report you for disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC) I did not edit the page at all, I merely agreed with the change. Even if I had, it would still be highly objectionable to accuse me of vandalism. The edit was good faith. If anyone is guilty of disruptive editing it is you for not following WP:BRD and starting edit warring instead of going to discussion to resolve the issue. SpinningSpark 15:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC) I fixed the indent level for clarity. The change was not appropriate at all. It was hostile and anti-collaborative, purely intended to damage the usefulness of the page, as stated by Sladen. Jehochman Talk 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Referring to a reason (if not universally supported) action as vandalism was hostile and anti-collaborative. This page isn't written like an essay, but a proposed policy. It hasn't been treating like an essay, but a proposed policy. Rewriting into an essay may be a reasonable course of action. Bullying Spinningspark for taking a reasonable (if bold) action is not a reasonable course of action. Knock it off. WilyD 16:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Knock it off yourself. It is an essay, clearly labelled as such. Intentionally damaging a page is vandalism. The user did not attempt to discuss their action, they just deleted the content and slapped a big X on it. That's not appropriate behavior at all. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC) If you want it to be an essay, then rewrite it to be an essay, and remove the imperatives from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Sure, that's a valid criticism. I could do that. See how well it works when somebody asks nicely, instead of smashing things up? Jehochman Talk 16:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC) The asserting that it's an essay is debatable. The assertion that the user intentionally damaged the page is clearly false, and the false claim they're engaging in vandalism only serves to stifle conversation by threatening them with sanctions. No content was deleted. Your attempts at bullying on this page are absolutely unacceptable, and must stop. Resolve your disagreements by discussion, not name-calling and threats. WilyD 17:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Instead of pontificating, why don't you specify what's wrong with the essay? Your commentary is unhelpful, so just "knock it off". Jehochman Talk 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC) It makes no difference to me if it ends up as a failed policy proposal or an essay (though I'll agree with David Eppstein's point that the imperatives are problems for claiming it's an essay, and the page history shows it was presented as a proposed essay/guideline, as does most of the discussion on this talk page) - what is a problem is you falsely accusing Sladen of vandalism, and then threatening to "report" him to gain an advantage in a dispute by name-calling and threatening, rather than trying to have a civil discussion. WilyD 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC) The imperatives have already been cleaned up. Before shooting off your mouth, check the facts. The editor was obnoxious, deleted content, damaged the page on purpose, and I think that it is problem. I have every right to report what I think is a problem, and it is not bullying to tell them exactly what I'm planning to do. You're the one who's throwing around a loaded term and acting like a bully. Jehochman Talk 17:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC) (after ec) That's a ridiculous claim. The issue was discussed here first. Most of this thread is about just that. The page was not deleted, or even damaged. Some text was struck-through and it was labelled as a failed policy. As far as I can see you are a minority of one in this discussion at the moment. If you want to continue to develop this idea then fine, but it would be more honest to label it as a draft policy which is what you are really aiming at. @Wily, let me say it again, I did not edit the page in any form, it was another editor, although I had expressed an intention above to do so. SpinningSpark 17:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Discussed? I didn't even have a chance to reply. What was the hellfire rush to delete the content and slap a big red X on it? Was it necessary to destroy the page so quickly? Jehochman Talk 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC) It was exactly my intention to wait to see if you modified the page (as you have now done) before taking any action. This would all have been so much more pleasant if instead of getting involved in a stupid edit war about the page template, you had just got on with it and removed the policy-like imperatives as I first requested you to do. There would probably then not have been any dispute about you removing the "failed policy" template and everyone would have been saved a lot of grief. You complain about other editors being in a hurry, but it was your premature rush to mark the page as an essay that provoked the dispute in the first place. SpinningSpark 17:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)