Talk:Tagged (website)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Notability Revisited

I’d like to revisit the notability of the child porn allegations against Tagged being in the lead of this article. I have let this subject rest for a number of weeks, as you may have noticed. During this time I have done some further research, reviewed many similar companies WP articles and also tried to understand your point of view in good faith. I still maintain that these allegations in the lead are out of place and should be included elsewhere in the article.

You claim that the allegations meet the criteria for being included in the lead and as you know I (and others) disagree. But, even if they did meet the criteria, that does not necessarily mean that they still belong there. As I read and work on other WP articles the opening leads are always brief summaries of the topic and the details on everything – from achievements to failures – from plans to controversies - are covered in their own relevant sections. This is better for the reader as it provides the broad story and facts in a summary form and is designed to entice further investigation.

No other article contains superfluous issues like this one and that inconsistency troubles me. May I ask, why are you so insistent to single out Tagged to be an exception?

Thank you and I look forward to your response. Goalloverhere (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We're insistent because that's what the Wikipedia guidelines require. We've been through this all, and you're offering nothing new. For longer articles, of course, there's a limit to how much detail can be given in the lead, but the lead is supposed to cover notable controversies. If you think other leads aren't doing that, perhaps those leads need to be changed.

If you don't have a new argument that's based on actual Wikipedia policy, then it's really time to let it go. Brettalan (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you are accurate in the statement of this being a "requirement" but regardless, this particular incident isn't notable. There's no need to offer anything "new" because the facts have been well stated multiple times. This particular issue does not meet the test of notability. Other leads should not be changed - they are fine - this one remains problematic.Goalloverhere (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability has been clearly established, and you know it. You've got no argument here. Let it go. Brettalan (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies but you are incorrect and I do have a very valid argument.Goalloverhere (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section Flag

The intro for this article is not the best in the world, but it is also not that bad. What seems more troubling to me is the way things are sectioned out. Frankly, it does not seem too encyclopedic. The way the sections are overly specific to topic makes them come across to the reader as inflammatory. For example, Orkut seems to have even more controversy as a company, but the same topic is sectioned as simply "Electronic spam".

Also for Goaloverhere: maybe you should step back and look at the rest of the article? If the controversy does not belong in the introduction, then why would it also deserve to be broken out as subsections? Can we agree here?

NCSS (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've thought for a while that "Controversy over bulk email invitations" should really just be titled "Bulk email invitations", and have made that change. Apart from that, I'm not following your concern. Previously, this article was criticised for having all the controversy in a single section, and it was recommended that controversial elements should instead by integrated throughout the article. That was part of the intention of my "big edit" last year; see the second dot point of Talk:Tagged/Archive_2#Big_edit. I thought the whole point of the {{Criticism}} was to draw attention to dedicated criticism sections, which are discouraged per the essays Wikipedia:Criticism sections and Wikipedia:Criticism#Evaluations in a "Criticism" section. Disclaimer: I'm at work right now... Will try to have a closer look later or tomorrow. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Adrian. So if I understand correctly, we agree that the titling of the sections needs some work. After reviewing the discussion on the archive page it seems as though the "big" edits made were based on information available to us back in June of 2010. There has been significant coverage in the press for Tagged on other topics in the last year, such as a move towards social games and fairly substantial company growth. However these topics do not seem to be as prominently featured (or sectioned) as the controversies are. By overly sectioning controversies I feel it has compromised the neutral viewpoint of the article, even with the recent change. NCSS (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Today I have changed the order of some of the sections based on what I have seen done with other articles like this one. NCSS (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It had already been clearly established that the criticism flag was unnecessary, but I left it. And someone who had no prior involvement with the article came along, saw how unjustified it was, and changed it, giving a clear and valid reason. So you can no longer say that we're being biased or acting like we own the article or whatever you usually say. And the only thing you can say is "you didn't post on the talk page". So?

I think it's clear at this point that Tagged wants some sort of flag on this article, and that you guys are working for them and will put up a flag no matter what. You have had LOTS of time to make your case and haven't come close. There's absolutely no justification for it. Stop it.

I have no problem with the reordering of the sections, although I'm not sure why "Reception" is better than "Popularity and user demographics" for that section--usually "Reception" is used for sections of reviews and outside opinion. Thoughts, anyone? Brettalan (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Popularity and user demographics" is an accurate and comprehensive description of the contents of that section. If there's any section that should be titled "Reception", it's the one currently titled "Awards and recognition"... Come to think of it, "Reception" would also be a more neutral title for that section, which could then include both positive and negative material. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Reception is specifically about novels, but gives some indication about what a section titled "Reception" would normally contain.

I don't understand the re-ordering of sections. The new order puts most of the negative material at the bottom of the article where readers are least likely to read it, despite it containing the most wiki-notable parts of this article. Note the "History" section contains no mention of Tagged's spamming, despite that being the most notable chapter of Tagged's history, based on coverage by the most influential sources (Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The reordering and the adding of YAST (Yet Another Spurious Tag) seem like part of the on-going agenda to diminish the prominence of notable controversies in Tagged's past. Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about the title Reception. I think User Demographics and Traffic or perhaps User Demographics and Site Traffic may be a better descriptive title. Goalloverhere (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know how to begin to respond to such a comment Brettalan. It's just baffling. I am a person, just like you, who has their own thoughts and feelings. My goal is to help improve Wikipedia. What is your goal? What do you hope to accomplish here? Why can't we just work on this article together? NCSS (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You want to work on this article together? Then you need to accept what other people have told and shown you. That means that you need to stop insisting on taking the controversies out of the lead, stop trying to add unjustified tags, and accept that the article isn't going to be terribly flattering to the company.

You know, I decided not to object to the re-ordering of the sections, because I am trying to compromise and trying to keep this from being any more adversarial than is absolutely necessary. But two other people gave arguments suggesting that the reordering is not proper. In addition, all of us have expressed concern as to why you retitled that section "Reception". But instead of responding to those comments, you're just playing the victim and asking why I'm not being nicer to you, as if I had been personally insulting which I certainly was not. How about addressing the arguments where you can and conceding the point where you can't? THAT would actually be helpful. Brettalan (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Brettalan, Who said anything about the lead? I was raising a concern about the sectioning of this article and other editors seemed to agree with the fact it was a valid point to discuss (which it was and has been in the past). The two editors you are referring to, re: Reception title are Adrian J. Hunter and Goaloverhere? It is interesting to note that the opinions of other editors seem to matter only when they are in agreement with yours. I do not see myself as a victim. I see myself as an editor trying to contribute while getting accused of all sorts of random things in the process. You cannot continue to make nasty accusations, revert my edits and then simply declare it's not personal. Also, a few new editors seem to be working on the article. How come you haven't asked them who they are or why they are editing this page? Is that line of questioning reserved for editors who disagrees with you? Maybe you should take a break from editing this article and help somewhere else for a little while. Your objectivity seems to be lost. NCSS (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

IT'S NOT PERSONAL. You keep making edits that are friendly to the company but are against Wikipedia policy. You have repeated refused to answer the question of whether you have any connection to the company. If you think, under those circumstances, that stating that I think you're working for them is "nasty", that's your problem. And given that YOU opened a completely bogus Netiquette page against me--where you claimed I was being "rude and aggressive" and then could not find ONE person who agreed with you and could not offer ONE example of same--I think that you have no business saying something like that, anyway. I have been VERY patient and open-minded with you. You've made much worse accusations against me than I ever have against anyone. Heck, you've made worse accusations against me IN THIS POST than I ever have against anyone.

I *do* think the resectioning is a valid point to discuss. My point was that Adrian and Ucanlookitup (not Goal, FWIW) raised concerns about it--NOT ME--and you responded by complaining about me personally instead of, you know, responding to their points. Note that I haven't said one word against your reordering and I haven't reverted the edits. If you give me a decent reason for them, I might even agree with you. But instead you only want to talk about how I'm being so mean to you.

I haven't asked the new people whether they have an interest in anything because I haven't seen any reason to think they do. If someone keeps arguing for a particular course of action, it's a valid question to ask. It's been asked of me, and I answered. Who do you think needs to be asked?

Again, it's not personal. The only thing I've said that can remotely be considered personal is that I think you have a connection to Tagged, and you could have ended that just by denying it when it came up. If you read what I've written in this section with a little more objectivity, you'll see that I have been suggesting that you stop trying to vilify me and explain the reasons why you think your edits are justified instead. It's up to you whether you do that or not. If you're not arguing about the lead anymore, I'm glad to hear that. I think the Tag issue has been settled, too. I, again, haven't expressed any opinion about the sectioning other than "I don't personally have a problem with it", "I'm not sure why 'Reception' is a better title for that section", and "I think you should respond to the points Adrian and Ucanlookitup have made." If you have a response to them, make it. If you have a reason why you think "Reception" is a better title for that section, say so. If you just want to talk about me and how I'm being mean to you, well, I don't know where you're getting that from. Brettalan (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

NCSS, you wrote above that you changed the section order "based on what [you] have seen done with other articles like this one." Which articles were you referring to? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The first point I would like to address: "You keep making edits that are friendly to the company but are against Wikipedia policy." Brettalan, you have suggested that I only add positive information. Let me remind you about my former contributions and subsequent comment back in April of this year. I am the editor who ADDED the NY AG controversy to this page in the first place. I never intended for that information to be put into the lead, because it really does not belong there, but then it happened.

You have accused me (and other editors) of COI issues on the following occasions as a means to discount our input on discussion: Dec 2010, January 11, 2011, March 3, 2011, April 4, 2011 (you're on Tagged's payroll), April 19, 2011 (stop wasting everyone's time), April 22, 2011, May 15, 2011 (stop it), August 22, 2011, August 24, 2011, September 14, 2011 (you guys are working for them), September 28, 2011

You said before there is no COI on your end, but help me understand your comment:

Unsolicited mail was certainly sent--I've received it myself. Yes, it's true that there was the possibility to opt-out, but according to the citations provided, those options were presented in such a fashion that many people would not notice or understand them. There's no question that passwords WERE aquired by Tagged. Brettalan (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

and then a few days later by Ucanlookitup:

Not spamming in the true sense? I've never signed up for tagged.com, yet I have received dozens of false and unsolicited emails from them. How is that not spam? Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ucanlookitup has made by far the most edits to this page with 153 and Brettalan you are in the top ten with 23 edits. I think it's time for you to come clean about your intention. Please explain how you came to receive the spam if you've never used the site? Clearly getting spammed upset you somehow. I get it. Nobody likes being spammed. I've been open about being a user of Tagged. Not sure what else you want from me.

Adrian, my apologies. I will have a response for you soon. NCSS (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NCSS - It's really simple. Someone that I had a casual business acquaintance with naively provided their email password to "find friends". I was then repeatedly spammed with false and misleading emails suggesting that this person a) wanted to be my friend me and b) posted photos for me. It was professionally embarrassing for them and annoying to me. I hope that clears it up. If not let me know and I'll provide more details. Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

On a side note: 153 really?!?!?! Are you sure? I need a life. On the other hand, you counted them. Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the same story here. I am a tutor, and a parent who had hired me to tutor her child signed up for Tagged. This led to my getting misleading emails saying she had sent me photos, and so on. It wasn't a big deal, although it was annoying. Those emails led me to find out more about the company, which led me to this page. Brettalan (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ucanlookitup: Yep, you're "winning" on edit count [1]. They add up over time. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't know about that tool!Ucanlookitup (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ucan / Brettalan - We view Tagged differently. No amount of time or discussion will help that. The story is crystal clear now. I see a company that made a few mistakes a while ago, but from what I've been reading this past year they seem to have evolved into a better company. You will always see a company that has wronged you (embarrassed, rather) and so I think your editing this page is how you want to pay them back.NCSS (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pay anyone back. I'm just trying to make the page the best it can be under Wikipedia guidelines. Brettalan (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel wronged or embarrassed. That might be what you were hoping to read but it's not what either Brettalan or I wrote. I do, however, object to companies that attempt to whitewash their page through anonymous edits by employees, paid consultants, and COI editing. Perhaps you are correct that they made a "few mistakes a while ago", but Wikipedia is not a parole board that can "wipe the slate clean". If Tagged goes on to become notable for other things, then these "mistakes" will fade into the past. If the controversies remain what they are most notable for, then it should remain prominent in the article. Ucanlookitup (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Article restructuring

I've just restructured the article: before, after, diff. The table of contents has changed from the left box to the right box:

Company history Website User demographics and site traffic Mobile versions Social games Pets Farm Bulk email invitations Legal action Child safety References External links

Company history Bulk email invitations Website Mobile versions Social games Child safety User demographics and site traffic References External links

My reasoning is as follows:

• The old "===" level headers added little so I've removed them.
• Previously, the Company history section contained no mention of Tagged's spam which, as we've already discussed extensively, is the most wiki-notable aspect of their history. This section is organized chronologically, but incorporating the content of the Bulk email invitations section in with the other 2009 material would overwhelm the Company history section and make it harder to follow. So I've made Bulk email invitations a discrete subsection of Company history. An additional benefit of this organization is that it makes it clear that the spam issue is in the company's past, which I hope will please those who have previously emphasized this point.
• The Mobile versions and Social games sections were both short and concerned the website itself, so both naturally fit under Website. Moving Social games under Website also facilitated the merging of some duplicated content.
• The Child safety section is also largely about the operation and content of the website itself, so follows naturally from the Website section
• User demographics and site traffic should always be the most up-to-date section, so it fits well at the article's end, in line with the ordering of the Company history section from oldest information to newest.

Overall, my aim with these changes and some of my other recent edits has been to address the "bitsiness" or lack of coherence of this article, which I think comes from having many contributors add different sections. I think integrating material into fewer, larger sections makes this article more closely resemble Wikipedia's best. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Adrian, thanks for your recent edits. Looks good and I guess we finally agree that the spam is the most notable controversy.NCSS (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while since I looked at this page and since there has been a restructuring of the article (which at fist past seems to make sense) I have added some changes too. I made the child safety area more concise and it reflects the fact that the allegations made by Cuomo had no follow up - which makes me even more suspect about the charges than in the past. Furthermore - this was an insignificant event that had absolutely no follow on coverage in any press after the initial allegations further demonstrating, unlike the 2009 spam / bulk email issue, how insignificant this issue was for the company.Goalloverhere (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Help is here

I saw the request for help and am offering up my assistance. Not sure where to start, but LMK.. THX ReginaldTQ (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ReginaldTQ for the offer. I think the article could benefit from some copy editing, maybe more images too. Anyone else have ideas? NCSS (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think the main reason--really the only reason--that the request for help was made was for more opinions on the issue of whether the child pornography case should be in the lead. And, related to that, whether there is a way to ascertain the current status of the case, and what if anything to say if we believe that the case did not go forward but we can't find a source for that. I think we should get more than one comment on the issue.Brettalan (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates to recently restructured article

Ucanlookitup - Dilute bad press? You’re kidding right? As with Adrian’s restructuring this change is to accurately reflect the subject for the reader. I believe that is the spirit of WP – neutral point of view of relevant and accurate information not a place to highlight “bad press”. You know that editors are not suppose to highlight good or bad press. One thing that does amaze me is how fast you react to anything to do with this article – wow! :) And by the way - let's not be doing anymore revisions without discussion. I have followed this request for you and I am sure you will do the same here - least you violate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring - again. Goalloverhere (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, do you not see the inherent problem with changing the article unilaterally, in direct opposition to all prior discussion, and then saying "don't revert without discussion"? But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and discuss this first.

You deleted sourced, clearly notable material from the article. Unless you can give a *good* reason for this within 24 hours, I'm removing it. Also, you left the appearance that you had a source for the claim that no suit against the company over Cuomo's allegations was ever pursued, but the citation actually refers to the original warning by Cuomo and does not say that the suit was not pursued. If you have a source that actually says that no suit was filed, then that unquestionably belongs in the article, but if you can't find a source, we shouldn't just assume it and we certainly shouldn't make it appear that there is a source when there isn't. Brettalan (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Adrian made a major article restructuring and explained the changes after the fact (at least from what I can tell) so I was reacting to working to improve the article for accuracy and NPOV.

We continue to disagree on every aspect of notability with this particular issue. In my opinion it does not belong in the article at all - much less the lead - but I have allowed it to remain there as the discussion continues. So first the issue is not notable and second detailing all of the alleged issues - never proven just alleged - is even less relevant. I am thinking there is no source for the suit not being pursued because this is not notable in the first place. Look at the spam incident - follow on coverage and reports of settlements etc etc. That, I agree, is notable. Perhaps the language can be changed to indicate there is no source (I have looked for something and I can't find anything).Goalloverhere (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note I have started to become more active with this article after Adrian's restructuring because it can use a lot of improvement. I removed some non relevant history mentions (example- the donation to the Haiti Earthquake is not that significant - many donated) and also cleaned up some rather promotional language about the company. I am not sure why there is a "box" around the spam settlement and I am not sure how to remove it. This was not intentional and I welcome someone to come in and fix it. thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Done--it was just an indent at the start of the line. No time to respond to the rest right now, so if anyone else has thoughts, please jump in. Brettalan (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, in response to concerns about the wording on assuming that a a suit was not pursued by the NYAG I have re-worded the entry to provide clarification.Goalloverhere (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian - I noticed you reverted my attempt at clarification on the Bulk Email section as follows in quotes:

In June 2009, "motivated by a misleading invitation to join the site", Time magazine columnist Sean Gregory called Tagged "The world's most annoying..... If I am following this correctly, you indicate that the statement is "unsourced speculation". In reading the column by Gregory, it seems very clear right from the start that his receipt of an unsolicited and misleading email is what prompted him the write the article that carries the headline. Wanted to ask that you reconsider - thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his motivation was to explain to his contacts what happened... Maybe his motivation was to get back at the company... Maybe his motivation was to prevent others from falling victim... Maybe he had no motivation beyond earning his paycheck that week. I don't know; you don't know; neither my speculation nor yours belongs in the article.

I realize the original sentence about Tseng maintaining a strong company culture sounded overly promotional, so have restored this in a simplified and hopefully more neutral version. I'm not sure why you deleted the sentence about the Haiti Earthquake donation. I agree that it's not of tremendous significance, but I don't think a single sentence unbalances the article, and have restored a simpler version.

"...there is no evidence that a suit was pursued.^[62]" didn't quite work, as it still incorrectly implied that reference 62 sought evidence of a suit and didn't find any. Without a source to tell us whether a suit was filed, I don't think we can make a claim either way. I think most readers of the article in its present form would assume that no suit was filed, based on this article's lack of description of said suit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian – I completely disagree because it is very clear what Gregory’s motivation was for writing the column but in the spirit of cooperation, I will concede the point.

I appreciate the fact that there is nothing to cite on the status of the threatened lawsuit – so that is why stating something indicating that “no evidence that a suit was pursued” is accurate and acceptable. That is logical.

I have also removed the unnecessary and unproven allegation detail that offers no value to the reader once again. If the reader is interested in learning more about the allegations they can check the reference.

Finally, after much consideration of everyone's points, I have also removed the reference to the 2010 NYAG allegations from the lead. The arguments for notability are not valid. Having these in the lead is an attempt by a few to manipulate WP policy applying a very narrow and out of context interpretation of the guidelines. Overall coverage must be considered from multiple dimensions. Beyond the number of press outlets (which was small) the follow on reporting MUST also be weighed.The coverage was too fleeting and there was no follow on reporting whatsoever. This proves that this issue was not notable. There is a solid argument for it to not even appear in the article at all much less the lead but, again, in the spirit of cooperation I will concede having it mentioned in the Child Safety section. Feel free, if you wish, to add a flag disputing this change – unlike you I will not remove it but will allow it to remain while you come to understand why this does not have a place in the article. Goalloverhere (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Goalloverhere, these issues have been debated since 2009. You are adding nothing new to the argument but are simply unilaterally making changes that you know are not agreed to. Dispite your promises in the past, you are not debating the issues until a consensus for change has been achieved. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ucanlookitup – you and Brettalan have admitted that you were embarrassed and felt wronged by Tagged so it is you “two” that have a conflict of interest and are clearly working to use WP as a place to attempt to punish the company.

YOU ARE LYING. I never said I felt embarrassed or wronged. I simply said that I first heard about the company through an email "invitation" sent out to me purporting to be from the parent of a client of mine. If anyone would have been embarrassed, it was that parent. I came to the article to learn more about the company and that's how I started editing it. YOU said that I was "embarrassed". I never did.

Moreover, for you to claim that *Ucanlookitup or I* have a conflict of interest when you have repeatedly refused to answer the question about your own conflict is ridiculous.

I have stated before that I use the site and that does not constitute any conflict of interest - that is it. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tried very, very hard to be reasonable, to explain my actions, and to listen to your opinion with an open mind. It's very clear that you are not interested in the opinion of any other editor nor in Wikipedia's policies. You asked just five days ago that no one make any more revisions without discussing them first, and now you're making a revision that you know other editors strongly oppose and which you know violated Wikipedia policy without any new discussion. Stop it. Just stop it. Brettalan (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is totally untrue. There are a number of examples where I have listened, accepted and even agreed with your opinion. The most noteworthy - when I first started editing the article I did not see any reason for any of the controversy to be in the lead - including the spam. But after reading through the discussion and debate - came to agree that the 2009 spam incident was significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead. The 2010 incident does not come anywhere close and you know it.Goalloverhere (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore – you make a lot of unfounded accusations about the other editors of this page and their motivations.

I have no conflict of interest and have not "admitted" anything you claim. In my opinion, neither has Brettalan. I have made no accusations but have pointed out established facts that you are well aware of. But since your raised the question, I will ask you for a third time, do you have any business relationship with Tagged.com? Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly it is you who is a single purpose editor and you and Brettalan are always editing on top of each other and claiming to be the judge and jury. That behavior is wrong and a lot more suspect of an agenda than any of the others participating in the article. Perhaps you are one in the same?

I have allowed the incorrect lead for a period of time as things have been considered even though I (and others) have disagreed and proven that it was not notable. This includes you two removing well justified flags resulting in me demonstrating incredible patience. Now, with the recent restructuring, the time has come to improve the article once and for all.

It is not incorrect. You have been asked repeatedly to explain exactly what was incorrect and you have not done so.

I'll explain it again and again - the allegations are NOT notable in any way shape or form. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What you have done, is wait until previous discussions are archived before starting a new onslaught of COI editing with the single purpose of removing the statements about child pornography. Those statements are, however, notable and well documented.Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many instances that show you are disingenuous including the fact that you have taken down multiple flags. This proves that you are trying to manipulate WP for your own agenda. Therefore your conflict of interest and actions attempting to use WP as a place to enact punishment disqualifies you from editing this article so please remove yourself. I have reverted the edit again and again offer you the opportunity to place a flag if you wish and unlike your behavior – I will allow it to stand. Thank you and goodbye.Goalloverhere (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It only proves that I disagree with you. And I am not alone in that. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Goalloverhere, given that we biased sockpuppeting cabalists are trying to manipulate WP for our own agenda, there's no point trying to convince us of the merit of your argument. You instead need to convince independent contributors, which you can do by initiating a Request for comment. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Adrian. I will try to get help from some of the projects this article is associated with. NCSS (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Goalloverhere, On the off chance that your comments above are sincere, please be assured that Brettalan and I are not the same person. I was not wronged or embarrassed by Tagged.com. I have no conflict of interest and I have no reason to believe Brettalan or Adrian does. Please also acknowledge that this article has been the subject of severe sustained COI editing by Tagged employees and those hired to act in their interest. If you feel you need to be reminded of that history, let me know. It has been repeated many times, but repeating it another time is not a problem. But just to be equally clear on your side: are you saying that you do not now and have never had a business relationship with tagged or with a company that does? Are you also saying that you have no expectation of any kind of gain by editing this article in a way that is favorable to tagged?Ucanlookitup (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ucanlookitup – rest assured my comments are most sincere and thank you for clarifying that you and Brettalan are individual editors. I can also assure you that I have absolutely nothing to gain (or lose for that matter) with editing this article. And I want to point out that my edits have not been favorable to Tagged but rather I am trying to help produce the best article possible. My business relationship with Tagged consist of being a user of the site and I have clicked on ads and offers on the site in the past so if that is a conflict of interest to you then we have another issue.

I do indeed acknowledge, based on the evidence provided in the FAQ by Adrian, that it appears Tagged employees have attempted to edit and even manipulate the article in the past, however, I do not see any recent evidence. Please let me know if you see otherwise.

When I first came to the article I felt that the controversy with the company was no greater than any other social network or many other web sites for that matter. Having participated in the discussion and reviewing the facts I have come to the conclusion that the 2009 spam incident is indeed notable enough to be in the lead and be covered in its own section. The 2010 allegations by the NYAG, however, have been blown out of proportion by a few editors.

In reading through the discussion history there are a number of examples where personal bias and opinions of these same editors being upset with the company are evident. I do not have time to cite them right now but will attempt to research some specific examples. Nevertheless, just as there should be a concern with someone trying to make the company look “favorable” we should be equally concerned with editors imposing their opinions to attempt to make the company look “bad”.

I think there are a number of improvements that can be made to this article including adding more detail around the significant spam issues in Tagged’s past. My primary concern, as you know; however, is that the 2010 NYAG child porn allegations are being blown out of proportion and a narrow interpretation of WP policy is being applied to something that is not notable. I suppose I can appreciate your, Brettlan’s and Adrian’s concern that this is a conflict of interest situation but it is not from me. My only goal is applying reasonable and consistent WP policy to make the best possible article.Goalloverhere (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is recent evidence which I will recount when I have time. Until then, would you mind answering my question? Ucanlookitup (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You did answer it - thanks. Sorry I missed it on the first read. I have a difficult time assuming good faith, though, when you make statements that you know to be false. Most recently, it was that I "admitted" to a conflict of interest. You said it on this page and in edit summaries. It is frankly hard for me to believe that was a good faith statement. You can understand why, when reading that, I start to believe that your motivations are to remove negative material with any tactic necessary. There are other examples from previous discussions where you make a statement which is shown to be false, wait until the discussion is archived, and then repeat the same false statement. Ucanlookitup (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok good – glad that was clear - I wasn’t sure when I saw your comment so thanks for clearing it up. And speaking about misreading – in going back over the discussion I see that I was mistaken on the “embarrassment” statement – rather you and/or Brettalan were annoyed and it was others that may have been embarrassed. So my apologies, and I retract the earlier statement.

Also, I was interpreting a conflict of interest based in part on those statements so my wording may have been too strong. I do feel, however, that there is a negative bias towards Tagged from you, particularly in the past regarding this article.

In regards to the archiving of discussions, I am not familiar with this or how that even works. Is it automatic? Does someone do this? You and Adrian are more well versed in the workings of Wikipedia than me so anything that was archived and then I came in after following up with more concerns was by pure coincidence and absolutely not intentional.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to this – we disagree on the level of notability of a particular issue. I guess that you could say that the "good news" is it is only one issue as you won me over on the other Spam issue. :) I will have to look into this Request for Comment process that Adrain suggested – but I have to say that I think it is wrong that the onus is all on me to do this – why not the other way around? Why not at least allow a flag why we debate it? That is why I feel your motivations have been to highlight inflammatory and unproven statements and allegations made by a politician - that happened to be picked up in some press on a MUCH more limited basis than the spam issue and manipulate Wikipedia for another agenda. Goalloverhere (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is on the verge of edit warring and if this continues someone will end up being blocked. As for my own opinion, while the child pornography charges are quite notable, I have to agree with Goalloverhere that they are not significant enough to be covered to such a large extent. In fact, I think the sentence "he New York State Attorney General Cuomo has also criticized Tagged for its alleged failure to respond promptly to complaints about child pornography" should be removed from the lead entirely. -download ׀ talk 21:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Download, Welcome to the discussion.Could you expand on your reasoning? Given that you agree it's notable, it would seem that the lede should in fact include it:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." - Wikipedia:Lede

Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this issue is that nothing has been decided in court yet. In fact, it's been almost 1.5 years and I don't believe this article has any information on what has become of the lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit, and though it is notable in this case, I don't think it should be included in the lead until something has been decided. -download ׀ talk 00:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. I actually added it to the article and never intended it for the introduction. I will remove it now. NCSS (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is equally true that Tagged.com has never denied the accusations. Neither one of those statements have any bearing on whether or not it should be in the lead. To quote an old adage, absence of proof is not proof of absence. In fact, the reasonable conclusion is that the two parties reached an agreement which has not been disclosed. Regardless of what you believe, it is not appropriate for us to base our decision on speculation but to simply report what is known from reliable sources. And to follow Wikipedia policy, which we have. The removal flies in the face of two years of discussion on the topic. Therefore I'm reverting the removal Ucanlookitup (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Got to agree with Download on this one. There's been no action on this lawsuit in over a year and half, if there was something notable, there would have been an article on it. If there was any news of a settlement, then that would warrant this issue being listed in the lead, otherwise it should be noted later on the page. Socialmaven1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Changes to Child Safety Section

Hello there. I have revisited the child safety section of this article several times over the past year and have always been troubled by the level of detail that seems unnecessary regarding the NYAG allegations from about 2 years ago. Although you can see it in history - for convenience - this is what I removed:

For example, a slide show with images of children engaged in sex acts with other children was reported in April 2010 and remained online nearly two months later; some of the children in this slide show appeared to be under 5 years old. Cuomo stated his office would sue Tagged if these issues were not resolved within five days. At a news conference, Cuomo referred to Tagged as "one of the worst social networking sites that we've encountered."

Unlike the bulk email issue which was notable - this was not and the explicit details of allegations do not serve the reader. Thank you for your consideration of this change. Goalloverhere (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

After Adrian's revert - I revisited and removed the "example" which seems unneeded and excessive detail. Goalloverhere (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The current version seems like a reasonable compromise. The example doesn't really add anything. Brettalan (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

References