Talk:Web Sheriff

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Web Sheriff article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Computing: Websites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance).

NPOV concern[edit]

Having seen some recent coverage on Techdirt of Web Sheriff's practices (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160606/02071834632/web-sheriff-accuses-us-breaking-basically-every-possible-law-pointing-out-that-abusing-dmca-takedowns.shtml?threaded=true#c689 and other linked articles), I'm slightly concerned that the article currently has no mention of what seems to be a pattern of vaguely legalistic bluster and overreach that is in rather strict contrast with the uniformly positive view presented in this article.

I'm considering adding NPOV. It's unlikely I will if only because, well, I don't really know how to actually do it, pardon my noobishness. But to future editors, at least take a look? Thanks. 108.50.51.25 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to balance the ad like text in the article now. Some other sources to be used may be https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160523/08165034524/web-sheriff-abuses-dmca-weak-attempt-to-hide-info-under-uk-high-court-injunction-fails-miserably.shtml and http://www.bazaardaily.co.uk/2016/05/12/shk-squaring-off-singer-elton-john-notorious-injunction/ and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538935/Now-love-cheat-star-tries-gag-Google-Star-asked-site-remove-dozens-web-links.html // Liftarn (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not reliable. See WP:RSP. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#Techdirt I'm not finding much discussion about Techdirt. It's a group blog, that doesn't appear to claim the quality required to be a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bazaardaily link above is the only one that exists in English Wikipedia. It's a blog of some kind. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan Daily is also used as a source. // Liftarn (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources are generally considered unreliable for topics outside student life, and even those can be a stretch.

How about stopping the edit warring and discussing potential sources first? The problem with this long-running dispute has always been the poor sources. I think it would be as waste of time to use an RfC or Noticeboard until better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about giving a source for your claim about Spartan News? I also find it courious when a company specialised in removing content from the new gets everything that isn't unconditional praise removed from their article. // Liftarn (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made no claim specifically about Spartan News, but about such sources in general (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_215#University_student_newspapers_reliable?, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Are_student-run_college_newspapers_considered_reliable_sources?, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_222#The_Orion_-_Student_Newspaper)

Feel free to take the specific Spartan Daily article to RSN for the content in question. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Spartan Daily. // Liftarn (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cushing, Tim (May 24th 2016). "Web Sheriff Abuses DMCA In Weak Attempt To Hide Info Under UK High Court Injunction, Fails Miserably". TechDirt. Retrieved 27 June 2019. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Blog. Not reliable, and certainly not sufficient for the proposed statement of fact [1]. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not confuse publication format with reliability. Techdirt is used as a reliable source in other articles. But I've only found Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Techdirt and (in passing) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Are unreliable sources better than no sources? in the archive. // Liftarn (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, I'm afraid we may have incompatible views on sourcing and balance.

I'm glad you didn't revert VQuakr, who has similar concerns as mine.

Where do we stand on this? --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confusing publication format with reliability. Techdirt is insufficiently reliable to support the proposed edit. VQuakr (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned in the noticeboard discussion, The Spartan Daily is not a suitable source for this information, but TorrentFreak (RSP entry)'s article "Web Sheriff Sent “Forged” Taio Cruz Birth Certificate to MusicBrainz" is reliable. — Newslinger talk 00:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have used that as a source for the previously blanked section. Now, how do we adress that the major part of the article sounds like an advertisment? // Liftarn (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an entire paragraph is due here. Since there is only one cited source, the incident can probably be condensed to one or two sentences with fewer details on the contents of the birth certificates. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that TorrentFreak is a rather poor source. RSP says, "Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics."

This is BLP info. Please do not add it again until there's clear consensus to do so, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Companies are not covered by BLP. // Liftarn (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All content, including all articles and talk pages, is within the scope of WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a company is not a living person. // Liftarn (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is obvious but irrelevant; the relevant living person here is Taio Cruz. VQuakr (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's irrelevant why do some people insist on deleting the section on BLP grounds? It is true Taio Cruz is irrelevant apart from in relation the actions of Web Sheriff (a company) just as with Axl Rose and Bryan Adams. // Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because its removal is required per policy, as noted above, per WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Web Sheriff is an anti-piracy company, which is in the scope of file sharing. The details of the birth certificate, as you have mentioned, are not in scope. I've started a noticeboard discussion about the TorrentFreak article at WP:RSN § TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff. — Newslinger talk 23:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Web Sheriff, MusicBrainz and false birth certificate for Taio Cruz[edit]

MusicBrainz recounts Web Sheriff's provision of a fake birth certificate intended to support Taio Cruz's alleged birth name of "Jacob Taio Cruz" over what has subsequently been established in many mainstream sources to be his real name (see his article)- https://blog.metabrainz.org/2016/03/08/beware-of-the-web-sherriff/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.216 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]