→Gleam Futures Paid Editing Operation: userlinks last |
Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) →MutualArt.com: new section |
||
Line 541: | Line 541: | ||
:Gordon invested money in a company that later went bankrupt. Someone kept adding what is said to be misinformation to the article regarding Gordon's role in the failure. That material has now been oversighted. So if editing continues on this article (i.e. if the page isn't deleted per the current AfD) people will need to keep an eye on the BLP issues. (See [[WP:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Gordon (businessman)]] for some of the issues. The AfD includes references). From what remains in the history, it appears that the negative info may have originally come from [[Special:Contributions/128.8.127.130]]. [[User:Bengee123]] was taking out the negative information and Krutapidla2 was putting it back. [[User:Krutapidla2]] may not have been aware that some of the text was claimed to be misinformation. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
:Gordon invested money in a company that later went bankrupt. Someone kept adding what is said to be misinformation to the article regarding Gordon's role in the failure. That material has now been oversighted. So if editing continues on this article (i.e. if the page isn't deleted per the current AfD) people will need to keep an eye on the BLP issues. (See [[WP:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Gordon (businessman)]] for some of the issues. The AfD includes references). From what remains in the history, it appears that the negative info may have originally come from [[Special:Contributions/128.8.127.130]]. [[User:Bengee123]] was taking out the negative information and Krutapidla2 was putting it back. [[User:Krutapidla2]] may not have been aware that some of the text was claimed to be misinformation. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: I have disclosed that I am a paid editor already and described the issue. Please note editor [[User:Kolma8]] has vote against this page to be deleted and made some edits. At first look it would seem he is removing promotional language, but he also removed 2 references to make the page look less credible. His arguments in the delete page don't stand. I have a good feeling that is the same Pakastani UPE from freelancer site using multiple accounts. I am adding him to the investigation list above. His edit history shows that he is editor for one year. Could you please also lock the page maybe for 2 more weeks until the dust settles. [[User:Martinvince|Martinvince]] ([[User talk:Martinvince|talk]]) 21:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
:: I have disclosed that I am a paid editor already and described the issue. Please note editor [[User:Kolma8]] has vote against this page to be deleted and made some edits. At first look it would seem he is removing promotional language, but he also removed 2 references to make the page look less credible. His arguments in the delete page don't stand. I have a good feeling that is the same Pakastani UPE from freelancer site using multiple accounts. I am adding him to the investigation list above. His edit history shows that he is editor for one year. Could you please also lock the page maybe for 2 more weeks until the dust settles. [[User:Martinvince|Martinvince]] ([[User talk:Martinvince|talk]]) 21:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
== MutualArt.com == |
|||
* {{pagelinks|MutualArt.com}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|Bodokh}} |
|||
User has disclosed their affiliation (i.e., employee of MutualArt.com) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=994582493&oldid=994532875 here]. Now it seems they need some guidance on [[WP:COI]] issues (which is rather behavioural than content-related, hence less suitable for [[WP:DRN]]). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:28, 16 December 2020
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Brigham Young University
- Bassknight(byu) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cstickel(byu) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Orson Scott Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the great grandson of BYU namesake Brigham Young
- Patrick Madden (essayist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a professor at BYU,
- Church Educational System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), parent organization of BYU
- Leonard J. Arrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) former BYU Professor
- Hugh_Nibley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) former BYU Professor
- Merrill Bradshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) successful BYU alumni
- Brian_Kershisnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) former BYU Professor
- David Dalton (violist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BYU Professor emeritus
These are three paid editors who have disclosed their status on their user pages, and even in their usernames, but aren't disclosing at the articles they create or edit. Rachel Helps according to her user page is the program coordinator; she was asked to also disclose and have her students disclose at article talks but has said she doesn't think it's necessary, and from a quick check of the most recent article creation of each, they aren't doing so.
They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. But I do think they probably need to disclose at article talk, and since there's already been discussion at Rachels Helps' talk, I thought I'd bring it here and see if others had concerns. —valereee (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Should definitely be noted on the article talk pages. Other editors can add them with a ref to the disclosure. (I agree that they should be doing so themselves.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I would just like to echo what was said above by Valereee, @Bassknight(byu), Cstickel(byu), and Rachel Helps (BYU): are writing quality, well researched and sourced articles, which are neutrally written. They have added "BYU" to their sigs, perhaps a slight change to "Username (PE from BYU)" would solve the disclosure issue. // Timothy :: talk 13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- TimothyBlue, I don't think that solves the problem. The article talk pages need to note COI creations, not just the usernames. Usernames can change -- once these editors are no longer with BYU, will they prefer to change them? Readers and editors need to know the COI history of an article with something permanently in the article talk page history, IMO. —valereee (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light. You have yourself acknowledged that our edits are generally NPOV and well-researched. Maybe this is a discussion more relevant to paid editors in general? Why do you want to require that I and my students tag every talk page we edit when it isn't required? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rachel Helps (BYU), I'm sorry to bring this up, it just concerns me when anyone is paid for editing without doing full disclosure (which means something permanently on the talk, IMO), and in this case, it could have the appearance of BYU paying people to edit in their own interest. It's not that I think you and your students aren't doing good work; I do. But whenever an entity pays someone to edit, it's concerning.
- I want this because it seems like a service to readers who investigate to easily find this information. Please know I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but may I flip the question: why do you want not to do this? It seems like a pretty minor addition to your/your students' workload to add a notification to a talk page: a person being paid by BYU created this article. Why would that be a big deal? —valereee (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee Like I mentioned on my talk page, it sets a precedent for other WiRs. Some WiRs don't edit Wikipedia itself, but some do. If there is consensus on Wikipedia for WiRs or paid editors to make talk page notifications, I will happily comply, but I don't want to let my people-pleasing desires make other people's jobs harder. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rachel Helps (BYU), perhaps we can compromise: place the notice for articles which there's an apparent potential COI? For instance, A Little Lower Than the Angels (novel), Death in 19th-century Mormonism, I Don't Want to Kill You, etc. If there's no connection to BYU/Mormonism, no COI tag? —valereee (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee I'd prefer that you change the rules, which I would then comply with. "Strongly encourage" does not mean the same as "require." Why should my case be special? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rachel Helps (BYU), it's not. I'd have the same concerns if Notre Dame hired editors to edit about ND alum/Catholicism. "Strongly encourage" means "Best practices." 3RR is a rule; 1RR is best practices: the best editors go to talk after the first revert rather than the third. BYU -- IMO, any academic institution -- should be striving for best practices, not minimum requirements. —valereee (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job. Are there very many editors who disclose a a COI on every page (or every page related to a religious institution) they edit? What do other editors who frequent COIN think? I confess that I've rarely seen other editors do this. I'm going on wikibreak next week but should respond to the discussion on Nov. 30th. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, no deadlines. :) —valereee (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rachel Helps (BYU), if it helps assuage any concerns, I found my way to this discussion because I think I need to ask the same thing (disclose at least on related pages) of an editor affiliated with a non-religious institution of higher ed. So yes it does happen elsewhere/it’s not only about BYU. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee I've asked my students to create different accounts for their personal accounts and link them to their work account. After they stop working for me, I don't have any power to enforce my preference, but I hope that will assuage concerns about usernames changing in this specific instance. I feel like disclosing my paid library job on my userpage is sufficient to fulfill policy and ethical obligations, and I don't plan to change my username or userpage disclosures in the event of a change in job status. I have edited a non-trivial amount of pages that would require talkpage disclosures if I included all BYU alums and members of the LDS church. Honestly, the pages I feel a true "conflict of interest" on aren't those. I don't consider BYU professors to be my coworkers, let alone other church employees. There was a bit of a discussion when I discovered a copyright violation on the Harold B. Lee Library page and ended up rewriting the page. Two or three other editors edited the page to help me remove some peacock language that was a holdover from previous editing and to explore topics like banned media that I hadn't thought to research. Basically, I think the current system is working for catching potential COIs from me regarding my employer. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Rachel Helps (BYU), Bassknight(byu), and Cstickel(byu): the three of you are required to abide by the WMF terms of use. See WP:PAID: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." The terms of use also say: "community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" (bold added). You are being asked here to abide by WP:COI, including WP:COIDISCLOSE.The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work, and if you were writing about historical events and figures, it's unlikely there would be a problem. But you're not doing that. You're engaged in PR, writing about living people who are BYU staff and alumni, including creating articles. The COI is not (as you implied above) that you have a relationship with those people; it's that BYU has a relationship with them and is paying you. SarahSV (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to add something here. I hope it doesn't sound harsh.
- If other people are telling me ethically I should do something, and I’m reluctant to do it, but if someone else did it I wouldn’t object, maybe I should examine why I’m reluctant to do it myself. What exactly is my objection?
- I could go through all the articles created by BYU paid editors and insert a COI template for any that had a potential COI. That’s a lot of work for me because I have to first find, then investigate each article, assess it for its connection with BYU, etc. Oh, yep, the book this article is about…click to the author, yep, the author’s an alum, so yes, this book’s article should be tagged. Tag it. Why are you putting me through this when you knew when you created this article that the author was an alum and that was how you became interested in creating this article? You could have just tagged the talk page, done. Why would you object to doing that? It’s not a lot of extra work for you. It’s a work-saving for me.
- So as someone who wants to move the project forward, why object? To me, objecting to making this part of the normal operating procedure is a symptom of the underlying COI. A contributor who wouldn’t object to that addition as a problem, who isn’t being asked to do significant extra work to add it, but objected to adding it themselves, is maybe opening themselves to assumptions that they were hoping it never got added. Which inevitably means we have to ask: Why? Why would you be hoping this wouldn't be added? It’s troublesome. And I would have thought it would be troublesome to BYU, too.
- I reject the premise that this is “setting a precedent”. We examine each case on its own merits. The fact BYU voluntarily decided to do this would set no precedent other than to show what a best-practices approach would be. We have a strong tradition here of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So why not simply comply with the strong recommendations rather than requiring an actual rule? It’s so easy. Why not just do it? —valereee (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- SarahSV says:
"The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work"
That is a dreadful slur on Wikimedians in Residence; the community does not "turn a blind eye" (viz: "To ignore or deliberately overlook, especially with respect to something unpleasant or improper"), it positively and actively encourages Wikimedians in Residence; and the good work they do - and rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)- Why not just do it? I am abiding by WP:COI and WP:COIDISCLOSE. What you are asking me to do, add tags to talk pages, is not required. I personally don't think it's all that useful (see the comment a bit below about talk pages receiving many fewer views than the actual page). I don't mind if someone else wants to add it! I'm not secretly hoping to "get away" with anything. I could similarly ask you why you want me to do this so much. Why are you trying to guilt me into going back and adding talk page tags to a bunch of pages I worked on instead of working to change the rule for everyone, if it's so important to you? You are singling me out, and it feels unfair. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Rachel Helps (BYU), Bassknight(byu), and Cstickel(byu): the three of you are required to abide by the WMF terms of use. See WP:PAID: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." The terms of use also say: "community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" (bold added). You are being asked here to abide by WP:COI, including WP:COIDISCLOSE.The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work, and if you were writing about historical events and figures, it's unlikely there would be a problem. But you're not doing that. You're engaged in PR, writing about living people who are BYU staff and alumni, including creating articles. The COI is not (as you implied above) that you have a relationship with those people; it's that BYU has a relationship with them and is paying you. SarahSV (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee I've asked my students to create different accounts for their personal accounts and link them to their work account. After they stop working for me, I don't have any power to enforce my preference, but I hope that will assuage concerns about usernames changing in this specific instance. I feel like disclosing my paid library job on my userpage is sufficient to fulfill policy and ethical obligations, and I don't plan to change my username or userpage disclosures in the event of a change in job status. I have edited a non-trivial amount of pages that would require talkpage disclosures if I included all BYU alums and members of the LDS church. Honestly, the pages I feel a true "conflict of interest" on aren't those. I don't consider BYU professors to be my coworkers, let alone other church employees. There was a bit of a discussion when I discovered a copyright violation on the Harold B. Lee Library page and ended up rewriting the page. Two or three other editors edited the page to help me remove some peacock language that was a holdover from previous editing and to explore topics like banned media that I hadn't thought to research. Basically, I think the current system is working for catching potential COIs from me regarding my employer. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job. Are there very many editors who disclose a a COI on every page (or every page related to a religious institution) they edit? What do other editors who frequent COIN think? I confess that I've rarely seen other editors do this. I'm going on wikibreak next week but should respond to the discussion on Nov. 30th. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rachel Helps (BYU), it's not. I'd have the same concerns if Notre Dame hired editors to edit about ND alum/Catholicism. "Strongly encourage" means "Best practices." 3RR is a rule; 1RR is best practices: the best editors go to talk after the first revert rather than the third. BYU -- IMO, any academic institution -- should be striving for best practices, not minimum requirements. —valereee (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee I'd prefer that you change the rules, which I would then comply with. "Strongly encourage" does not mean the same as "require." Why should my case be special? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rachel Helps (BYU), perhaps we can compromise: place the notice for articles which there's an apparent potential COI? For instance, A Little Lower Than the Angels (novel), Death in 19th-century Mormonism, I Don't Want to Kill You, etc. If there's no connection to BYU/Mormonism, no COI tag? —valereee (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee Like I mentioned on my talk page, it sets a precedent for other WiRs. Some WiRs don't edit Wikipedia itself, but some do. If there is consensus on Wikipedia for WiRs or paid editors to make talk page notifications, I will happily comply, but I don't want to let my people-pleasing desires make other people's jobs harder. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light. You have yourself acknowledged that our edits are generally NPOV and well-researched. Maybe this is a discussion more relevant to paid editors in general? Why do you want to require that I and my students tag every talk page we edit when it isn't required? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- TimothyBlue, I don't think that solves the problem. The article talk pages need to note COI creations, not just the usernames. Usernames can change -- once these editors are no longer with BYU, will they prefer to change them? Readers and editors need to know the COI history of an article with something permanently in the article talk page history, IMO. —valereee (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I know Rachel from the Orson Scott Card article. I peeked at a few of her contributions, and based on the most recent one, I don't see any COIs there. She edits BYU alumni and Mormon-related articles, so what? No COI with BYU itself. A COI is from a direct affiliation and not a tangential topic relationship. Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Elizium23, it's paid editing. IMO this should be disclosed on talk. I know it isn't required, but it is recommended. It's fine if the community disagrees with me, but I think paid editing needs disclosure that can't go away. How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it? —valereee (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it?
I concur. That's really a pretty cut and dried case - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Elizium23, it's paid editing. IMO this should be disclosed on talk. I know it isn't required, but it is recommended. It's fine if the community disagrees with me, but I think paid editing needs disclosure that can't go away. How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it? —valereee (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The relevant section of WP:PAID, which is a Wikipedia policy, says: "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries."
. Note the use of "or", not "and". Also note that WP:CURATOR applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with what David Gerard and Andy Mabbett have said. While BYU is a reputable and noteworthy subject, and the edits are being made in an NPOV way, the edits are nevertheless being made in clear violation of WP:PAID rules. It is disappointing that editor Rachel Helps (BYU) does not seem to accept the need to follow these rules when making even NPOV edits. She and other COI editors should simply disclose their PAID and/or COI relationship on the article talk page and make an open edit request. That would solve the problem. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's not what I said; in fact it's directly contradictory to what I said, in which you will note, I quoted policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest. More specifically, I fear that this editor's interpretation of the guidance that is provided to WiR participants is an accurate description of that guidance that says that WiRs are not subject to our COI policies and practices. I don't know if this has ever been addressed head on but it's a big problem that is only going to grow until a resolution is forced. ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have been a Wikimedian in Residence several times (at more instiutions, I believe, than any other editor), and no-one has ever suggested to me, verbally or in written guidance, that "WiRs are not subject to our COI policies and practices". Quite the contrary, every WiR I have discussed the matter with has been clear that CoI is an issue that must be considered when undertaking the role. However, "our COI policies and practices" are not as limiting as some people (especially, but not only, on this page) either think or wish, or pretend, them to be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- ElKevbo, re:
I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest.
I agree and I don’t think it’s a new problem. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- No action needed - There is nothing in our policy that requires every page that has been edited with an "apparent potential COI" (whatever that means) to contain a declaration and we should absolutely not pursue this as a norm. I do not understand why Rachel Helps (BYU) is being singled out here and being treated unfairly by folks who are veterans and should know better. A disclosure by a possible COI editor is not a requirement as stated in the Terms of Use, as the TOU covers paid editing only and it provides for three different options for disclosure. Disclosure of "apparent potential COI" is not a best practice of the Wiki Education Foundation and the hundreds of classes and thousands of students it has supported over the years. This impractical and misguided dragnet taken to its logical extremes would make for talk pages megabytes long as people would need to declare apparent potential COI for their hometown, their alma mater, their relatives, their vacation spots, their favorite foods, their pet preferences, their phobias, their medical conditions, their dislike of horror movies, et al. With all due respect Valereee and other commenters here, stop the intimidation of Rachel Helps (BYU) and her peers for what you have already pointed out are productive and non-problematic behavior that operate within our policy. Paid editing does not automatically equate to problematic editing. Similarly, volunteer, unpaid editing is not all virtuous and pure, as we see from sports/scifi fandom, school alums editing the articles of their alma mater, and thousands of other edits we see everyday, especially from those of us on the front lines of Recent Changes patrol. This has the hallmarks of a solution looking for a problem that has very serious downsides and terrible cascading effects if implemented. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I work on a paid basis for The Metropolitan Museum of Art as a Wikimedia strategist and, as I have declared on my user page, I have made contributions to Wikidata, Commons, and Wikipedia related to content related to that institution, as well as developing documentation, best practices, training and software for the Wikimedia environment. I am open to any discussion or audit of any edits and contributions made with regard to my position as a Wikimedian in that paid capacity.)
- I object to the characterization that anyone is being treated unfairly here by someone "who should know better". I object to the characterization that I am intimidating anyone. Students in classes are not being paid. I am not paid by my hometown or my phobias. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, I agree completely with you that User:Rachel Helps (BYU) has fully disclosed this on her User page, fulfilling requirements of discloser for WP:PAID, especially considering editing related to GLAM. FULBERT (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, as far as I know, it isn't required that editors with a (potential) COI need to place {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}} themselves – you (or anyone else) can just do that yourself and link to a diff where the connection has been disclosed. Regarding the rest, I think it's generally a good thing to disclose paid/COI editing in as many places as possible, though I'm not sure we should make requiring talk page notices a matter of policy. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, yes, I know anyone can do so. And clearly we shouldn't even try to require every paid editor to template every article they create or add to; obviously there'd be vociferous objections just like we're seeing here. But I guess I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required. Honestly I would think museums and universities would want to do this to make it absolutely clear that they're behaving ethically. I'm honestly kind of surprised that a place like BYU wouldn't make this a requirement all on their own. My general feeling about Mormons is that they work very hard to behave ethically. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I for one am not objecting to anyone making open and transparent disclosures; I'm objecting to you - or anyone else - pretending or implying that a certain form of disclosure are a requirement, when they are not; and I object very strongly to people who are acting in good faith and complying with all applicable policies being dragged to this noticeboard, which exists - as stated at its head - for cases where "you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality", and which should only be used - again, as stated at the top of the page - for issues "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, if there's a better place to discuss this, I'm happy to go there instead. I tried to figure out what would be a better place. I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions. I only want to discuss this issue. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- What issue? You've been told that the policy you apparently thought applied, does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The issue of whether paid editors editing articles for which they/their institution could be considered to have a COI even when they're completely free to decide what to edit/create. The issue of whether we need clarification on that. For BYU, I say articles about BYU and its faculty/alums and Mormonism could be considered to represent an apparent COI. For articles on Utah, probably not. For a museum, the museum itself and its staff, certainly, but probably not the items in its collections. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- What issue? You've been told that the policy you apparently thought applied, does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, if there's a better place to discuss this, I'm happy to go there instead. I tried to figure out what would be a better place. I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions. I only want to discuss this issue. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I for one am not objecting to anyone making open and transparent disclosures; I'm objecting to you - or anyone else - pretending or implying that a certain form of disclosure are a requirement, when they are not; and I object very strongly to people who are acting in good faith and complying with all applicable policies being dragged to this noticeboard, which exists - as stated at its head - for cases where "you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality", and which should only be used - again, as stated at the top of the page - for issues "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, yes, I know anyone can do so. And clearly we shouldn't even try to require every paid editor to template every article they create or add to; obviously there'd be vociferous objections just like we're seeing here. But I guess I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required. Honestly I would think museums and universities would want to do this to make it absolutely clear that they're behaving ethically. I'm honestly kind of surprised that a place like BYU wouldn't make this a requirement all on their own. My general feeling about Mormons is that they work very hard to behave ethically. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There is certainly merit to what Valereee is asking. The problem is that our policies are not entirely clear. There is a difference between what has been said about paid editing above (which has been properly disclosed on the user's page) and our WP:COI guideline, which says "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content."
The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page. Following that intent, it certainly does make sense that a user would disclose a conflict on the talk page of the article in question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- You're making the presumption that the editors listed above have a CoI in the articles in question. And again, the edits do not meet the requirements (as evidenced by
"I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions"
) for a report on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)- Ah, Andy. This is a discussion noticeboard. Queries like Valereee's are entirely welcome, whether you like it or not. It says above that Rachel Help (BYU) is an employee of Brigham Young University. They would therefore have at least connected contributor status on these pages where they have edited:
- Orson Scott Card, the great grandson of her employer's namesake Brigham Young,
- Patrick Madden (essayist), a professor at BYU,
- Church Educational System, the parent organization of her employer, BYU.
- I agree that Rachel Helps' contributions are very positive. That does not change the fact that she has an apparent COI in some articles that should be declared on the repective talk pages, per WP:COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I invite you to read and consider the large panel at the top of this page, headed "Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)" and including the part headed "Additional notes", which incudes the parts I quoted, has been there for a considerable time, and remains so by consensus. You are, of course, at liberty to raise an RfC to rewrite or remove it.
- But thank you for confirming that the required "using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality" and "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period do not apply.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sigh. The fact that one's contributions to an article are minor, uncontested and neutral do es not release one from the obligation to declare their connection on the article talk page. I've added a few more articles for which there is COI to the the list at top. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Obligation"? What was it I was saying about how "our COI policies and practices are not as limiting as some people (especially, but not only, on this page) either think or wish, or pretend, them to be"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sigh. The fact that one's contributions to an article are minor, uncontested and neutral do es not release one from the obligation to declare their connection on the article talk page. I've added a few more articles for which there is COI to the the list at top. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, Andy. This is a discussion noticeboard. Queries like Valereee's are entirely welcome, whether you like it or not. It says above that Rachel Help (BYU) is an employee of Brigham Young University. They would therefore have at least connected contributor status on these pages where they have edited:
- Comment: I feel like I'm missing something here, but don't these accounts have the name of an institution in their WP:USERNAMEs, hence constituting WP:ORGNAME? This seems like a circumstance in which someone is going to be unable to get very firmly below the level of WP:APPARENTCOI.So, while it sounds like there's no cause for sanction or even criticism of the users themselves, it seems strange to me that what appears to be a suggestion that article talk pages be marked with possible-apparent-coi templates is getting indifference and pushback. (Or why anyone would be, at COIN of all places, acting as though APPARENTCOI and WP:POTENTIALCOI are anything other than familiar terms that not only appear in the COI guideline repeatedly but have their own shortcuts, and are hardly exclusive categories.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, I think is the short answer. WP:ORGNAME was designed to prevent company or corporate branding or sponsoring. I think everybody in the know, knew that WP could be subverted by business types in the beginning and that was one way to to prevent it, by making identification easier. The majority of folk above are academics for the most part. Its a completely different domain. These are straight up folk. I don't think you can't get better. I think we should close this immediately. scope_creepTalk 12:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- There really was no need to shorten the answer to a two-paragraph comment down to just one word. WP:APPARENTCOI does not have an exception for "...unless you totally know that they're the super bestest people ever—in that case you should immediately shut down any discussion of COI." (Also, btw, paid editing policy was not here
in the beginning
; IIRC it was the product of more than a decade of work and debate in the community.)As our community experience has shown, even though it's important to keep an eye on where content is coming from, highlighting an apparent COI is not an accusation of terrible dishonor and malfeasance—it's simply a statement of fact, which is why I am bewildered by the Sturm und Drang over noting in article talk pages that declared paid editors with WP:ORGNAME usernames related to the article topic have edited... as Valereee notes,Usernames can change
and WP:PAID declarations can be removed once the user is no longer an employee. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- There really was no need to shorten the answer to a two-paragraph comment down to just one word. WP:APPARENTCOI does not have an exception for "...unless you totally know that they're the super bestest people ever—in that case you should immediately shut down any discussion of COI." (Also, btw, paid editing policy was not here
- No, I think is the short answer. WP:ORGNAME was designed to prevent company or corporate branding or sponsoring. I think everybody in the know, knew that WP could be subverted by business types in the beginning and that was one way to to prevent it, by making identification easier. The majority of folk above are academics for the most part. Its a completely different domain. These are straight up folk. I don't think you can't get better. I think we should close this immediately. scope_creepTalk 12:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Rachel Helps (BYU), Bassknight(byu), and Cstickel(byu): I've added {{Connected contributor}} to Talk:Orson Scott Card. Please take a look to see how it's filled in. That should be added to any articles or drafts you're paid to work on (or that you regard as part of the compensation package you have with the university), including when you're active only on the talk page. Any articles you create can be taken through WP:AfC and you can use {{edit request}} for longer sections you want to add to articles; anything short and harmless can probably be done directly. Using the template makes disclosure pretty straightforward. There should also be something about your status on your user pages. Hope this helps. SarahSV (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- As noted above, none of the things you ask for here are required. In particular, a recent proposal seeking to force WiRs and others to go though AfC when creating articles has failed to gain consensus (and rightly so). Suggesting {{edit request}} is facile, when reasonable requests can remain unanswered for several months. All of the users named above already have the appropriate declarations on their user pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- No action needed. She has met all requirements for COI and PAID. She's had a COI statement on her user page since January 2016, and a PAID notice since April 2016. She solicits feedback on her userpage from anyone who questions any edit she's made, at the same time acknowledging that she may have some biases that she can't see. SlimVirgin added a notice to the Card article on November 30. She's working with Barkeep49, a respected editor who apparently has no problems with what she's doing in the GAN. No one here has provided a diff showing even one problematic edit. Unless someone can provide evidence she's making bad edits, there's no reason for her to stop or limit her editing. As far as I can tell, she hasn't violated any of our policies and guidelines, and has made every effort to act above the board and completely within policy and guidelines here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- How can you say she has made very effort to act within the COI guideline, when that is so manifestly false? If you want to nominate COI for deletion, please go ahead, because that's what this amounts to, that people can just do whatever they want. If that's the case, we can all look for paid-editing positions. See my response to you on Rachel's talk page and my post to her about some of the POV issues in the article. One reason having policies and guidelines is a good idea is that everything doesn't have to be discussed from first principles every single time it happens, with the enormous waste of other people's time that entails. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest bringing up your concerns on the GAN. I've looked at your concerns, and they are really minor in comparison to how much the article has improved. Some of what you discuss there is even discussed already at the GAN, as well as reasons some things were done. It is not "manifestly false". Rather, you appear upset that she's not doing things the way you want them done. Card is a very controversial topic, and there are many ways things can be worded in the article. Take the concerns to the GAN so they can be discussed there. Rachel is working very well with Barkeep49 at addressing concerns he's brought up, and that seems a more productive place to discuss the issues with that article. As I wrote on her talk page, she's already jumped through all the hoops (COI and PAID disclosures). She's got not affiliation with Card beyond them both having attended the same university 40 years apart. She's shown over and over and over again that her edits are clearly within policy and guidelines, and she's shown a willingness to make changes if someone brings up a legitmate concern. How about trying to work with her on the GAN rather than wasting her time here? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- How can you say she has made very effort to act within the COI guideline, when that is so manifestly false? If you want to nominate COI for deletion, please go ahead, because that's what this amounts to, that people can just do whatever they want. If that's the case, we can all look for paid-editing positions. See my response to you on Rachel's talk page and my post to her about some of the POV issues in the article. One reason having policies and guidelines is a good idea is that everything doesn't have to be discussed from first principles every single time it happens, with the enormous waste of other people's time that entails. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the proposal to require posting on article talk pages. This is not required by WP:PCD and so would be a creepy sanction. It is not justified because the edits being made to those articles are acceptable. And it would not be proportionate because article talk pages are not read by our readership. For example, consider Orson Scott Card. The readership for that page is high — about 950/day — but the readership of the talk page is negligible — about 1/day. So that's three orders of magnitude different and it seems likely that this is typical.
- And consider the top editors of Orson Scott Card. For the current version, two of them are the editors in question. But consider the third — Hodgdon's secret garden. I have no objection to any of their editing but notice that, while they seem to be likewise interested in LDS topics, their user page is blank. I see no evidence that being paid makes such editors more disreputable or dangerous. The effect might well be the opposite — that the professional editors act with greater care and diligence as they are more accountable and have an interest in being seen to act properly.
- So, as there's no evidence that there's a problem and no evidence that the proposed sanction would be appropriate or effective, we should just thank Rachel and her colleagues for their good work and wish them well.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew, no one has suggested a sanction. What is being requested is that WP:PAID and WP:COI be respected. Note, from the former:
SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)"Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published."
- That's not consistent with WP:PCD and so we see that the creep is out of control, creating a hostile environment in which competent contributions are censured while bureaucratic rules and regulations proliferate. Whatever one calls these proceedings, I remain opposed to the OP's proposal. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, that is WP:PCD. WP:PCD and WP:PAID are shortcuts to the same policy. That policy is based on the WMF terms of use, which state: "community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks SV, of course they are the same *policy*. There something else that is missing from this discussion. People seem to think that just because WP:COI is a guideline, they can ignore it, that our only rules are policies. That's just not true, e.g. WP:Notability is one of our most important rules on a day-to-day level. But you need to follow the guideline, with occasional exceptions, or face up to the fact that you're causing disruption that could have been avoided simply by following the guideline. We're not about to say that we're going to throw out all our guidelines just because occasional exceptions are to be expected. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we can ignore your guidance because there's a core policy which says exactly this. Such dead letters and inconsistencies are routine. I was lately at WP:ITN where I pointed out that WP:NOTNEWS forbids coverage of routine sporting events but WP:ITN/R is dominated by a long list of routine sporting events and so the comparatively obscure Japan Series was the lead headline at ITN for a week while more prominent news such as the Chinese moon landing was ignored. But, even though this is policy, the sports fans are likely to have their way and keep filling ITN with their favourite horse races and ball games. So it goes. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks SV, of course they are the same *policy*. There something else that is missing from this discussion. People seem to think that just because WP:COI is a guideline, they can ignore it, that our only rules are policies. That's just not true, e.g. WP:Notability is one of our most important rules on a day-to-day level. But you need to follow the guideline, with occasional exceptions, or face up to the fact that you're causing disruption that could have been avoided simply by following the guideline. We're not about to say that we're going to throw out all our guidelines just because occasional exceptions are to be expected. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, that is WP:PCD. WP:PCD and WP:PAID are shortcuts to the same policy. That policy is based on the WMF terms of use, which state: "community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's not consistent with WP:PCD and so we see that the creep is out of control, creating a hostile environment in which competent contributions are censured while bureaucratic rules and regulations proliferate. Whatever one calls these proceedings, I remain opposed to the OP's proposal. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew, no one has suggested a sanction. What is being requested is that WP:PAID and WP:COI be respected. Note, from the former:
Possibly tangential?
Can anyone clue me in on why this issue is apparently seen as a major problem by Wikipedians in Residence? Or point me on where to look? For me, one institution/institution's participants voluntarily deciding to declare COI at potentially-perceivable-as-COI article talk doesn't seem like it "sets precedent" that other editors similarly paid by institutions would be therefore required to follow, but editors here who have been WiR are disagreeing. I'm not trying to fuck with WiR and similar programs here. What am I missing? —valereee (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- My guess is that you're seeing a disagreement between those who believe that (a) a COI is inherently bad so declarations of a COI must therefore have a stigma and should thus only be used in circumstances where we believe that someone is "deserving" of bearing that stigma and (b) there is nothing inherently wrong with having a COI or declaring one. This doesn't ever appear to have been definitively worked out project-wide so disagreements continue to fester. I also suspect that many editors are not familiar with conflicts of interest in their personal or professional lives so they have a different view or little experience with this concept compared to editors who have some experience with the concept and how it's addressed in other contexts. The WiR project explicitly works with editors who are clearly connected with specific organizations so it's unsurprising that this broader lack of agreement and understanding directly impacts that project. ElKevbo (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- ElKevbo, for the record, I often work with well-intentioned COI editors (am actually actively doing so now; just came from some of that work) and occasionally even straight-up work-for-hire editors. I don't like working with the work-for-hires much, but I'm quite sympathetic to well-intentioned COIs and don't consider them inherently bad. Thank you for the explanation of the disagreement. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- You have brought a group of good-faith users, who are, in your own words, "writing good, well-researched articles which appear... to be neutrally-written and -sourced", to a noticeboard which is for cases where "you are concerned that an editor ... is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality", and which should only be used for issues "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, and having had that pointed out to you, you still want to know why anyone would see your actions as a "major problem"? Beats me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, and I'm doing it in good faith because I have a concern I think is valid and that maybe we should consider how to/whether to address. If BYU is hiring editors who write about BYU alums, which they are, they have an apparent or potential COI. I've offered to take this to a more appropriate forum. Maybe VP (Policy)? Maybe we need to tweak policy specifically for well-intentioned institutions that have hired well-intentioned writers to edit on topics that institution is connected to? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee: No, I think this is best handled here rather than at the Village Pump.Pigsonthewing: If we're going to split hairs about whether or not this is the board upon which notice concerning issues connected to conflict of interest ought to be discussed, then I would say yes in response to your last quote from the header: the editors in question have
repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period
; material which is not necessarily problematic due to their own actions—as it is not, so far, conclusively clear what multidimensional eigenpolicyguideline state would have previously held sway from the combination of, as ThatMontrealIP puts it,The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page
—hence until this discussion is concluded in a consensus-establishing way, the problematicness of the material derives with certainty only from a confluence of external factors rather than from anything these editors have done.Overall, I share the sentiments valereee expresses above:..I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required.
The simple matter of fact is that, the way the MediaWiki software and administrative processes presently work, as pointed out above, if at some future point a user page paid disclosure were to be removed for legitimate reasons, and the user name changed for likewise legitimate reasons, it would be very difficult to discover the apparent-COI connections to the material.I'll go a tad further than valereee though: while I don't think that a WP:PAID and/or WP:ORGNAME editor failing to place a talk page template COI notice on an article they've edited where an apparent COI could reasonably be said to exist, should be taken as prima facie evidence of the violation of any policy or guideline, I think it should be valid to regard failure to do so as an aggravating factor should concrete COI or substantial NPOV concerns arise. (Which, again, I have seen no evidence of in this particular case.) I mean, there's a reason why the basic {{uw-coi}} warning template advises the receiving user to simply avoid editing connected articles, and {{coi-stern}} says,edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged
(emphasis mine.)I'd also highlight that, although Scope creep made it sound as though paid editing and conflicts of interest are all about companies and brands and filthy capitalist lucre, which academics are above, in matter of fact there's a vintage 2004 essay Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism all about this kind of behavior in the noble Academy—also edited as recently as 31 weeks ago, and with a specific talk page notice template, {{Academic booster}}, which grew out of it, though that doesn't appear to have gotten much use. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)- You're welcome to raise an RfC to attempt to turn the fantasy version of policy you express above into reality, but this is not the place to do so, and pointing out that it is not reality is not "splitting hairs". [I also note that your comment includes an {{age in weeks and days}} template, that means the visible content will change, even though it is timestamped today and has been replied to.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- The syntax highlighting button in the standard editor looks like this: () if you're having trouble seeing the template and hence think using it is sneaky malfeasance or something. You yourself used {{tl}} in your own comment here, displaying a Template namespace pagename which could be renamed/moved at any point in the future and consequently change; using templates in talk page comments violates no policy nor guideline.Odd that your entire argument here is that technically following a specific selection of P&G to-the-letter makes one blameless regardless of actions, yet you casually, fallaciously try to imply fault when it serves your purposes. I just today ran across our article on the term “eristic”, and thought of you, so I came back to look at this thread...In keeping with that, I have no idea whatsoever what it is you're saying would require an RfC, but I suppose the vagueness is probably intentional. The text in the header of this page which you quoted above in support of your arguments, and I responded to, is no policy nor guideline either, of course. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome to raise an RfC to attempt to turn the fantasy version of policy you express above into reality, but this is not the place to do so, and pointing out that it is not reality is not "splitting hairs". [I also note that your comment includes an {{age in weeks and days}} template, that means the visible content will change, even though it is timestamped today and has been replied to.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee: No, I think this is best handled here rather than at the Village Pump.Pigsonthewing: If we're going to split hairs about whether or not this is the board upon which notice concerning issues connected to conflict of interest ought to be discussed, then I would say yes in response to your last quote from the header: the editors in question have
- Pigsonthewing, and I'm doing it in good faith because I have a concern I think is valid and that maybe we should consider how to/whether to address. If BYU is hiring editors who write about BYU alums, which they are, they have an apparent or potential COI. I've offered to take this to a more appropriate forum. Maybe VP (Policy)? Maybe we need to tweak policy specifically for well-intentioned institutions that have hired well-intentioned writers to edit on topics that institution is connected to? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Defining the scope of any conflict
For me there is a qualitative difference between a WIR writing an article about someone else employed by their organization or about a department of their organization and someone more tangentially connected - for instance an alumni of a university. So in this instance I specifically bring up Orson Scott Card which I'm interested in as I'm currently doing a GA review of that article. There's been a second claim of a COI for Rachel which is that BYU, which she works for, is named after Card's great-great-grandfather; that's way too indirect for me. However, to the extent that there is a COI do Alumni for a sponsoring organization qualify? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep, it makes no difference whether it's staff or alumni or anyone else. The issue is that Rachel is doing PR on behalf of BLP subjects at the request of an organization that is paying her to do it. That means WP:PAID and WP:COI apply. There are also POV issues with the Card article. I'm about to leave a note about this for her. I'll ping you when I do. SarahSV (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedians-in-Residents have generally been considered, in my experience, to be considered mission aligned with Wikipedia. This is certainly my view on them. You seem to be suggesting that there's no way for a WiR to write, without declaring a COI, about any BLP. I'm not quite there myself. This is why I wanted to have a specific discussion about the potential of alumni. I get from your POV that alumni aren't OK because no BLP would be OK but I'm not sure myself how widely that view is held and hence why I started this more focused subsection. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the argument here. Wikipedians-in-Residents are mission aligned when doing mission-aligned work for mission-aligned organizations. Being paid to do PR on behalf of a living science-fiction writer by the university he attended isn't remotely mission aligned. The argument seems to be that if the BLP subject were to pay for the editing himself, COI and PAID would apply, but if someone else pays, the policies and guidelines somehow don't apply. SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. So if someone at BYU were to edit Shannon Hale, to pick another Latter-Day Saint young adult author, would you have the same concerns? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- For me the concern is whether, unintentionally but because of their inherent COI, a well-intentioned paid editor will focus on some things and not on others, and that this can affect the article. If the COI is disclosed at article talk, other editors know they should be aware they may need to assess that. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, WP:NOPAY currently says that editors are strongly discouraged from editing directly. (When I last checked, that said "very strongly discouraged", so someone has changed the guideline.) Paid editors should put new articles through WP:AfC unless it really is "mission aligned" (e.g. writing about ancient Egypt based on access to a museum or library archive), or post it on talk for other editors to judge. The paid promotion of living people is unlikely ever to be mission-aligned work. SarahSV (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- AfC is already bogged down, with articles waiting several months for anyone to get around to looking at them. Adding even more to AfC would only bog things down even more. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake is bad for everyone involved. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. So if someone at BYU were to edit Shannon Hale, to pick another Latter-Day Saint young adult author, would you have the same concerns? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the argument here. Wikipedians-in-Residents are mission aligned when doing mission-aligned work for mission-aligned organizations. Being paid to do PR on behalf of a living science-fiction writer by the university he attended isn't remotely mission aligned. The argument seems to be that if the BLP subject were to pay for the editing himself, COI and PAID would apply, but if someone else pays, the policies and guidelines somehow don't apply. SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedians-in-Residents have generally been considered, in my experience, to be considered mission aligned with Wikipedia. This is certainly my view on them. You seem to be suggesting that there's no way for a WiR to write, without declaring a COI, about any BLP. I'm not quite there myself. This is why I wanted to have a specific discussion about the potential of alumni. I get from your POV that alumni aren't OK because no BLP would be OK but I'm not sure myself how widely that view is held and hence why I started this more focused subsection. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No action needed: Thanks for raising those points Valereee. The discussion that came up was enlightening. As you have rightly pointed out at the start, "They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced." These aspects are essential for Wikipedia. Thus, I think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy rather than for attaining the objectives of Wikipedia is not healthy. Vikram Vincent 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
What is a Wikipedian in residence?
I've always understood this to refer to volunteer editors who form relationships with universities, libraries, museums and archives, and who help to upload and write about material to which those institutions have access, perhaps exclusive access. They may or may not be paid to do this.
But in the cases we're dealing with here, the WiRs have never been volunteer editors. Bassknight(byu) and Cstickel(byu) appear to have no non-paid edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) has made six non-paid edits with that account and 41 with Rwelean. Otherwise it's all paid. A recent example of their work is Draft:Patrick Madden (essayist) (moved today by Barkeep to draft space), a professor that one of them knows, which includes:
- "Quotidian" is an important word in Madden's creative nonfiction philosophy. The word, which deals with everyday occurrences, is not only the title of his 2010 essay collection but the driving principle for Madden's writing, with his focus on small, thought-provoking events ..."
This is PR. And yet it's being supported on COIN, of all places. If the community has decided to support this kind of editing, then we can all get paid-editing jobs. That will include Christian Scientists writing about faith healing with information from the Mary Baker Eddy Library and drug-company reps with special access to the GlaxoSmithKline archives. Is that what the community wants? SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is a very important point, I believe. In my eyes, a WIR is someone who has significant previous unpaid experience. If you don't have that, you're simply a paid editor, and need to follow WP:PAID and WP:COI. Even then, I'd still support requiring WIRs to note their association to any topic related to their "employer" if they're being paid to make the edits. Note: It may be possible these folks do have previous volunteer experience. If they do, they should declare so, with links to previous account(s). —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The page you're quoting from is a new page from a new student editor of mine. Because of COVID restrictions, I haven't been able to train her in-person, and I haven't has as many hours to edit. I agree that the writing comes across as promotional, and she is still learning. However, plenty of WiRs are hired without previous Wikipedia editing experience. You're right, I didn't have much experience before becoming a WiR. I had made one page back when I was an undergrad. You don't think I and other editors can learn? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Rachel, this misses the point, which is that you and your colleagues are here as paid editors. You're not here as volunteers who managed to find a way to be paid while continuing to do work for Wikipedia. SarahSV (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Rachel Helps (BYU):, as I posted at your talk page WiR should not be creating articles about professors at institutions that employee them, under our COI guidelines, in mainspace. While organizationally you might be responsible for that student's edits, from a Wikipedia perspective, they're responsible for their own edits including being aware of the guidelines and policies that apply to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The page you're quoting from is a new page from a new student editor of mine. Because of COVID restrictions, I haven't been able to train her in-person, and I haven't has as many hours to edit. I agree that the writing comes across as promotional, and she is still learning. However, plenty of WiRs are hired without previous Wikipedia editing experience. You're right, I didn't have much experience before becoming a WiR. I had made one page back when I was an undergrad. You don't think I and other editors can learn? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
To answer the question posted in the section heading, there is nothing better than WP:COI in the section
Wikipedians in residence, reward board
"There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there."
That really answers all the questions in this whole thread especially the last sentence. More particularly about what is a WiR. At the redirect from the link above and at several other places aimed at GLAMers and WiRs there are informal definitions and guidance but I can't find a formal definition, and there is not an organization that says "You are officially a W-i-R" or that can say "You've broken the W-i-R rules, so you are no longer a W-i-R." (If anybody finds those offcial requirements please let us all know.) I personally think some W-i-Rs or GLAMers should come up with some sort of official definition of who is or who isn't a Wikipedian-in-Residence. Otherwise the enWiki community needs to do it, if we give them any exemptions from the WP:PAID rules, and I'd rather not have to do that.
More general background W-i-Rs started trying to get people to work with us if they represented a "mission-aligned organization." I was never aware that people wanted to get paid for this until about the 3rd or 4th W-i-R (from the Catalonian Wiki) announced his new position and that he would be getting paid. AS long as they were from "mission-aligned organization" it didn't make a lot of difference to me, but I do think it's time to clarify that we don't mean that W-i-Rs can come from General Motors or the Teamster Union. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree that making sure WiR come from places like university archives and not a large corporation is worth doing to the extent that our current guidelines/policies are not clear. We do have a problem because the core characteristics that are linked to in COI no longer exist (Outreach links to meta and that section doesn't exist there) so we might need to solve this on enwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, Barkeep49: I've been following this over the past few days—and I honestly wasn't aware that there were no hard-and-fast rules on the matter of Wikipedians-in-Residence, and it's long past time to define those rules (and roles). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, large corporations aren't the only issue. The other example I gave above was Christian Scientists paid to write about their faith healers based on material in the Mary Baker Eddy Library. I assume we would never allow that, yet it seems there's nothing to stop them calling themselves Wikipedians in residence with the freedoms that seems to entail. SarahSV (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Possible resolution?
I don't see that there is any reason to keep this open, IF we all agree to work together, without rushing it, to get a mutually agreeable position. @Rachel Helps (BYU): seems to feel that she and BYU are being singled out unfairly, but I think that the Wikipedians in residence, reward board section of WP:PAID lays it out that declaring on the talk pages is the normal expectation of WiRs. Perhaps this hasn't been well enforced in the past. I also believe that the Card article is more controversial than Rachel realizes. Maybe we can put the GA nomination for Card on hold for awhile until Sarah, Rachel, Barkeep and others come up with something acceptable in the article. I'd also like to ask everybody to come up with suggestions on how
- We can make sure that WiRs are meeting the expectations laid down in WP:COI and WP:PAID. I'd hope WiRs handle this themselves, but we can do it on enWiki if they prefer.
- Figure out any tweaks we can make to the wording of WP:COI and WP:PAID that makes it clear that declaring on user pages and article talk pages is generally the only way to go, e.g. finally get rid of the "very highly discouraged" style of language and just put in "should not" at the right places.
- In general just getting WiRs and people who oppose commercial paid editing working together. If commercial paid editing can't be controlled adequately, then stronger forms of control will likely spill over onto WiR territory. Thus it makes sense for both groups to work together. Paid editing gets controlled and WiRs get special recognition for the help they give Wikipedia providing information and articles that only GLAMS working as "mission-aligned organizations" can provide. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Smallbones, these are very good suggestions, thank you. I have no idea how to start a discussion involving the WiR community and where best to have it, but we don't have to rush anything. SarahSV (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There is some grumbling above about corporations such as pharmaceutical companies like GSK. Here in London, our most effective and productive WiR has been based at the Wellcome Library which derives its resources from a large pharmaceutical business which now forms part of GSK. Sir Henry Wellcome was a collector of curios and so his collection includes much quirky material about topics such as alchemy and witchcraft. This is all grist to our mill as we cover them alongside more modern modes of medicine. The Wellcome Library is a wonderful resource and I have attended many events there organised by their WiR and, during the lockdowns, still use their online facilities. For example, I wrote the topical article fever hospital using illustrations uploaded by Wellcome and put this on the main page as a DYK. It would be quite foolish to erect barriers to prevent cooperation and partnership with such a well-endowed institution and so we should not do so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, It would. However, we don't want, say, Hellomouse Ltd. (which I'm personally related to) coming along, and declaring an editor a WiR without the good faith intents behind it. So some rules about which groups can't have WiRs need made. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Might've not been clear, but this is an example. Hellomouse wouldn't actually do this. It barely counts as a company. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Getting back to Smallbones's point, I think that's an acceptable resolution, yes. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking around to see how "Wikipedian in residence" is defined. Wikipedian in residence states that it's a Wikipedian, but other pages suggest the title may be taken by someone who works for the institution. They all stress that the WiR should generally not write about the institution. For example, Wikimedian in residence:
- "The Wikimedia community distinguishes branding and marketing from expertise and knowledge. In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution."
Wikimedian in residence/Creating a Wikimedian in Residence position: "Typically WIR positions should not be writing content, such as Wikipedia articles, for the institution as their main activity." And: "Wikimedia platforms ... should be seen as scholarly communications platforms where the knowledge of the institution is shared, rather than marketing platforms, which focuses on improving the reputation of the institution."
Wikipedia:GLAM/About says: "GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote the institution, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public."
That seems pretty conclusive. SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Tatar Wikipedia experience
This is to share on the evolving experience in Tatar Wikipedia, previously reported on by Smallbones in The SignPost's coverage of government-paid editing for Tatarstan.
- I was the driving force behind it as a defacto non-paid & non-employed WiR for the Republic (just gave a press-conference in Tatar yesterday afternoon at the government-controlled regional information agency on the topic of Wiki-contests we are launching with another quasi-government partner, covered in some detail by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Tatar-Bashkir Service), so this might qualify as an example of WiR & Paid editors working in tandem
- As a Wikipedian and a local taxpayer, I made sure that TIDA, the regional government agency that agreed to partner with me in making Tatarstan better described onwiki (my personal COI) & made an effort to obtain permissions to incentivize content creation with public money, understands well the importance of its contractors following local disclosure and other related policies/guidelines of every Wikipedia language community project & was happy to see this being included this into the tender language. Public tenders are sometimes unpredictable, so Tatarstan is lucky to have end up having a contractor who is an experienced Wikipedian and a diligently disclosing paid-editor herself.
- Anna is linking the list of articles for editing (originally developed in Russian and offered for translation into Tatar) from the table in the subsection of ttWP's Village Pump (miscelaneous), which is also the place where subcontractors from among experienced ttWP editors sign up for doing content translation & localization (formatting) work. The dates the developed/translated material ends up onwiki are published in the table at Wikimedia Russia's WikiProject.
- I am now thinking about aggregating, recreating & linking to the same table in English, as well as the project description and prospective multilingual general and topic-specific lists at/from on Wiki-Tatarstan@Meta and possibly somewhere here on enWP as well
- Developing a detailed WP:COI and WP:PAID, templates and, especially, enforcing those is likely to be outside of Tatar Wikipedia's not just current, but even future community capacity, so we will probably formally adopt Commons style alternative policies.
- I would be grateful for advice, suggestions and recommendations from your community members.
P.S. Happy to have woken up at 2:30 am, start from m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Global Conversations to slowly end up here to enjoy reading whole of this non-stop from #Brigham Young University down & greatful to all contributors to the discussion. --Frhdkazan (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I am told that first published translation is this into the article on Sabinsky District. Frhdkazan (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Dragon Group
- Dragon Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dragon Sweater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mqsobhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mqs2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 119.30.41.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 37.111.192.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 123.200.10.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I recently edited the article for Dragon Group when I came across the old versions of the article edited by User:Mqsobhan. Check for example this version:
- "The Group's Chairman [...] is widely known as the Father of Bangladesh's sweater industry."
- "The group is among the world's largest sweater suppliers and is the largest sweater industry in south and southeast Asia."
- "[...] which produces most supple and excellent yarns and the quality is among the best in South And South east Asia ."
All unsourced. The account also created an article for Dragon Sweater, a subsidiary of Dragon Group, with some sentences the same word-for-word. The connection of the editor to the group can be checked fairly easily by reading the article itself. The article has been nominated for deletion before, but I think its now in a state worth keeping. However, I'm not familiar with CoI and so unsure what to do with User:Mqsobhan. I've notified him of the potential CoI on his talk page, but got no reply. His last edit was in 2016. Zarasophos (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Zarasophos, no trace of those edits is left in the article and the editor has not edited in four years, as you note. Your note here and on the user talk page serve to note the potential COI, but your diligence was probably unnecessary. Admin action is preventative, so no action is needed. Fences&Windows 00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the answer! Just to make sure, this is in fact a case of CoI editing, right? And while I agree that it's unlikely the user will cause any further harm, I'd like to note that the account already returned from a long hiatus once (from 2009 to 2016). It's also true that there's no trace of its editing left now, but that's only after my recent rewrite of the article - until then, most of the article was left as written, since Bangladesh hardly gets any attention. Thanks again! Zarasophos (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Mqsobhan has just become active again and deleted most of the Dragon Group article. The same revert was also done by User:119.30.41.228 and a newly created account, User:Mqs2020, who deleted the same contents three times over. Pinging User:CLCStudent, User:Viewmont Viking, User:Materialscientist and User:DoubleGrazing since they were also active on the page (thanks for that!). Zarasophos (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since both accounts are now banned for sockpuppeting, it seems this discussion can be considered closed. Zarasophos (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind. Two new IP accounts, User:37.111.192.130 and User:123.200.10.190 have edited the article today, deleting negative information. Zarasophos (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I had to laugh when I saw that the sockpuppeteer had accidentally described their own work as a
quakity edit
. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)- Just for context - in the article's immediately preceding edit, 11 minutes before, he started his edit summary with the word "Quality" (I often hit a "k" instead of an "l"). Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the page for a month. Fences&Windows 00:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, let's hope that's the end of it. Zarasophos (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Evelyn Knight (singer)
- Evelyn Knight (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 40serasongstress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account (formerly User:KnightFamily) is the self-declared offspring of 40s-era songstress Evelyn Knight. They are protective and a bit belligerent, with quite a lot of ownership in the mom's article. Orange Mike | Talk 03:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". Please can you link to the relevant discussion? Also, I note that 40serasongstress is currently blocked; by you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- The name-block has been removed. The relevant discussions can be found at User talk:40serasongstress, at Talk:Evelyn Knight, and at Talk:Evelyn Knight (singer). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Not so. There are no discussions on either of the latter two pages. On the other hand, there are seventeen discussion sections on the former page. Please be explicit, and link to the specific discussions which meet the above criterion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Try User talk:40serasongstress#Your edits on Evelyn Knight should have been made at Evelyn Knight(singer) and User talk:40serasongstress#File:Evelyn knight & friends.jpg listed for discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Neither of those sections in any way constitutes an "attempt... to resolve the issue". So I ask again: please link to where such disucussion took place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, I'm not sure what the point of this side-discussion is. Orangemike has opened this thread in good faith and notified the user in question. Many discussions will benefit from outside input. I don't see a need for anyone to guard the gates of COIN, so to speak: If those who are interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here feel that they are premature, they will say so. Blablubbs|talk 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- In other circumstances, it would be amusing to be told, on the page where Wikipedia's most vociferous gatekeepers gather, that gatekeeping is not necessary. I think my questions - far from being a "side-discussion" - are both clear and relevant, and that the page's requirements which I quoted are equally if not more clear. Also clear is the fact that I am interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here and that I feel that it has become apparent that this one is premature. Your apparent assumption that COIN is a venue which a novice user might find a congenial place to discuss their edits is a massive one, and at best naive; I imagine most people brought here without knowledge of Wikipedia would run a mile, once they see the hostile tone often displayed. But in this case this is academic, as one again the relative of an article subject is blocked, without there being any apparent attempt to welcome and discuss matters with them in a collegial and good-faith-assuming manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing,
- Nobody else here seems to think this is premature
- It's not a block, its a page block. They cannot edit those specific pages. They are free to continue the discussion if they're genuinely interested.
- As per Blablubbs, you don't need to guard the gates of COIN. Other users are interested in continuing the conversation without you if that's how you wish to handle things.
- This was an editor that admitted to SEO. There's a point at which their edits are no longer in good faith, and violate our trust. That is, in fact, what this notice board is for. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 11:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- And there's the problem in a nutshell; you bandy about a trigger phrase like "SEO", as though a family member trying to ensure the legacy of their mother is acknowledged is the same as a black-hat agency trying to manipulate Google on behalf of a nefarious client. And if you look at the suposed SEO edit, its not SEO related at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, I am aware of the contents of the edit. I'm not stupid. I understand their intent, it's never-the-less content for this noticeboard, worthy of discussion, and also good use of a pblock. The editor should be using edit requests and talking with us as is standard. This has been an ongoing issue for several years, admitted COI, and stuff like this is rather problematic.
- I don't see any issue with this thread, and at some point we need to enforce standard channels.
- And again, admitting to SEO is not exactly a great look. The point is the edit description, not the contents of it. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing,
- In other circumstances, it would be amusing to be told, on the page where Wikipedia's most vociferous gatekeepers gather, that gatekeeping is not necessary. I think my questions - far from being a "side-discussion" - are both clear and relevant, and that the page's requirements which I quoted are equally if not more clear. Also clear is the fact that I am interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here and that I feel that it has become apparent that this one is premature. Your apparent assumption that COIN is a venue which a novice user might find a congenial place to discuss their edits is a massive one, and at best naive; I imagine most people brought here without knowledge of Wikipedia would run a mile, once they see the hostile tone often displayed. But in this case this is academic, as one again the relative of an article subject is blocked, without there being any apparent attempt to welcome and discuss matters with them in a collegial and good-faith-assuming manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, I'm not sure what the point of this side-discussion is. Orangemike has opened this thread in good faith and notified the user in question. Many discussions will benefit from outside input. I don't see a need for anyone to guard the gates of COIN, so to speak: If those who are interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here feel that they are premature, they will say so. Blablubbs|talk 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Neither of those sections in any way constitutes an "attempt... to resolve the issue". So I ask again: please link to where such disucussion took place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Try User talk:40serasongstress#Your edits on Evelyn Knight should have been made at Evelyn Knight(singer) and User talk:40serasongstress#File:Evelyn knight & friends.jpg listed for discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Not so. There are no discussions on either of the latter two pages. On the other hand, there are seventeen discussion sections on the former page. Please be explicit, and link to the specific discussions which meet the above criterion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- The name-block has been removed. The relevant discussions can be found at User talk:40serasongstress, at Talk:Evelyn Knight, and at Talk:Evelyn Knight (singer). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Orangemike, after looking at their history (thirteen years of this!), I've pblocked them from Evelyn Knight (singer) (and Evelyn Knight for good measure) due to their ongoing COI editing, ownership, and the fact that their recent edit summaries outright admit that they're trying to SEO. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sam Sloan
- Sam Sloan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sa57arc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sam Sloan is an article that seems to have had various issue with its content going back years. A few weeks ago, a new editor Sa57arc showed up and has been working the article pretty much non-stop ever since. Lots of the edits seem OK and might be considered improvements, but there's also lots of content being added to the article that's unsourced/questionably sourced or otherwise has BLP problems. The editor has been engaging in discussion on the article's talk page, but some of the content being added is giving the impression of at least a WP:APPARENTCOI and the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this. I've also asked about this at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN as well as on talk pages of various WikiProjects, but I think it would be good for even more people to look at it as well. The subject of the article was blocked back in 2008 for NLT reasons and there have been lots of IP editors of it over the years. Looking at some of the edits made to the article over the years (like this one from 2013), there might have been some family members or friends editing the article. I'm not sure whether this latest burst of editing to the article (394 and counting since November 15) is related to anything like that, but perhaps some others could take a look and assess things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". You say "the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this"; please can you link to, and quote specifically, the relevant queries? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- The first time I queried Sa57arc was in this post and the response was this. The next time I asked was here and the response was this. The third time I asked about this was in this post and the response was this. Perhaps it would've been better if I had been more direct with my inquiries about this the first two times, but I tried to broach the subject without it seeming as if I was attacking the other editor. Anyway, another editor (Wallyfromdilbert) asked basically the same thing here and got this response, which is fine. However, when Wallyfromdilbert asked for further clarification here, he got this response. That led to this which has yet to be responded to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- In your OP you say "the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this", and yet in your latest you list three responses. I also note that the first mention of CoI on Sa57arc's talk page was the notification of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sa57arc posted "responses" to my queries in the sense that they posted something, but their responses didn't really answer the question of whether they had any connection to Sloan. As I posted above, perhaps the fault is mine in that I should've been more direct and simply asked whether they are Sam Sloan or whether they have any connection to him in a separate post instead of mixing it in with other comments. Anyway, if you and others feel there's no cause for concern, then that's OK by me. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am also concerned by the editor's repeated refusal to state whether they have a personal or professional relationship with the Sam Sloan. I have asked directly multiple times, including now for a second time on their talk page, and have received no response other than a single "I am not Sam Sloan". Give that this person is aware of obscure, unsourced details of Sloan's life and has said that they intend to email Sloan personally, I don't think the concern is unfounded, especially given how much the editor keeps trying to puff up the article with OR or trivial nonsense. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sa57arc posted "responses" to my queries in the sense that they posted something, but their responses didn't really answer the question of whether they had any connection to Sloan. As I posted above, perhaps the fault is mine in that I should've been more direct and simply asked whether they are Sam Sloan or whether they have any connection to him in a separate post instead of mixing it in with other comments. Anyway, if you and others feel there's no cause for concern, then that's OK by me. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- In your OP you say "the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this", and yet in your latest you list three responses. I also note that the first mention of CoI on Sa57arc's talk page was the notification of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- The first time I queried Sa57arc was in this post and the response was this. The next time I asked was here and the response was this. The third time I asked about this was in this post and the response was this. Perhaps it would've been better if I had been more direct with my inquiries about this the first two times, but I tried to broach the subject without it seeming as if I was attacking the other editor. Anyway, another editor (Wallyfromdilbert) asked basically the same thing here and got this response, which is fine. However, when Wallyfromdilbert asked for further clarification here, he got this response. That led to this which has yet to be responded to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- My concern is that Sam Sloan has had a alleged history of others putting him in a negative light.[1][2] This revisit of past drama very well may be an extension of old grudges. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I edited the Sloan article a few years back, but it was still on my watchlist when this post was made to the article's talk page. I responded in good faith and wasn't aware of any off-Wikipedia issues that Sloan might've had with others regarding content about him on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Anyway, my only main concern is whether the article content is in accordance with BLP; the APPARENTCOI concerns I raised above only have to do with the detail of some of the content being added, especially since it's not being supported by reliable sources. If these concerns aren't shared by others, then I'm not going to belabor the point. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do share the concerns that Marchjuly has given the seemingly non-public knowledge that the editor has about the article subject, their statement about emailing Sloan, and their repeated attempts to puff up the article about him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the only solution now is to give this person formal warnings for BLP violations of original research each time they occur and ask for administrator intervention when it goes past Level 5. I believe it is at Level 3 right now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do share the concerns that Marchjuly has given the seemingly non-public knowledge that the editor has about the article subject, their statement about emailing Sloan, and their repeated attempts to puff up the article about him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I edited the Sloan article a few years back, but it was still on my watchlist when this post was made to the article's talk page. I responded in good faith and wasn't aware of any off-Wikipedia issues that Sloan might've had with others regarding content about him on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Anyway, my only main concern is whether the article content is in accordance with BLP; the APPARENTCOI concerns I raised above only have to do with the detail of some of the content being added, especially since it's not being supported by reliable sources. If these concerns aren't shared by others, then I'm not going to belabor the point. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to point out this edit on my talk page by the editor, who has subsequently been adding unsourced potentially defamatory information into the Gypsy Taub article as well as poorly sourced allegations of criminal conduct. The editor has also tried to change the Gothamist article and the WP:BLP policy as part of their efforts to get in the information about the criminal allegations. Some of his edit summaries suggest that this editor may know Taub personally as well, such as [3]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sam Sloan (and several other banned accounts or IPs associated with that account) also added significant content to Sexual Freedom League, which appears to show a shared subject matter with Taub. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please also note the overlapping pages edited and similar editing style (numerous small edits and often single word edit summaries) as well as adding personal and seemingly non-public information to articles by 130.65.109.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), including to Sam Sloan and Sexual Freedom League. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update: Sa57arc has been globally locked by the WMFOffice per meta:Special:CentralAuth/Sa57arc; so, whatever APPARENTCOI concerns I might've had are resolved by default. It seems like this thread can closed for archiving, unless others feel there's more to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Neste
- Neste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jjanhone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A paid editor have made massive edits in last weeks. While some of edits are useful, some others are clearly promotional and also some critical information was removed. Therefore those edits needs checking for neutrality. Beagel (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- The red-texted header at the top of this page (and when you're editing it) says that you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion here. I have done so for you. - DoubleCross (‡) 19:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've edited the Neste article in Finnish which was then translated to English and I've added the text here and I'm happy to get improvement ideas or feedback about the page. Should we discuss about the edits here or on the article's talk page? I've removed stuff from Neste's own releases, and replaced links to WWF's and Greenpeace's releases and added a media source instead of them. It was a bit hard to edit the page as Beagel kept removing stuff before I had had time to make the whole picture clear. So the article is not what I had in mind in the first place. See the Finnish article [4] with help of translator and see if it is ok or not. I've used mainly notable media sources on the article. Jjanhone (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Jjanhone, if you're being paid to edit you generally should make specific edit requests on the article's talk page using the {{request edit}} template (and disclosing that you are paid to edit the article). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- See my talk page for a long discussion we had about my paid editing on October 2020 on admins' noticeboard. I think I got permission to continue editing then. I added 33,854 characters to Neste's article so if I proceeded with request edits it would be very complicated IMHO. If you know a good process who to do it please tell me! 16,161 characters (about 48 %) are still live. The content is translated from the Finnish Wikipedia article and as we've been using notable media sources it should be ok so I see no reason why they would not be ok for English Wikipedia as well. Jjanhone (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jjanhone. It might be a good idea for you to replace the AN comments you copied and pasted onto your talk page with a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325#Blocking a paid Wikipedia editor or maybe clarify things a bit by using a template such as {{talk quote}}. The way you added that content makes it seem (at least at first glance) that each one of those editors posted their comment on your user talk page and not as part of a discussion on some other page. This is a bit misleading and might even be a problem per WP:CWW.As for WP:PAID, each Wikipedia project is different with their own respective communities. Perhaps the Finnish Wikipedia community is a bit more tolerant of PAID editing, but many on English Wikipedia are quite suspicious of it. That's probably why PAID editors on English Wikipedia are encouraged to use article talk pages to make WP:ERs except for really uncontroversial edits. In principle, a PAID editor should be OK as long as they adhere to relevant policies and guidelines even when they directly edit articles themselves, but big changes or additions tend to be seen (perhaps unfairly) by many as not a good thing. Have you tried following WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement? Perhaps that would be one way to gain the trust of others. If you can establish to others that your edits are not a problem because you're PAID, then perhaps they might be willing to cut you some more slack after a little time has passed. Is there some reason why you need to be the one who makes the changes you want to make? Are you working under some kind of time constraints that make edit requests not very practical? While it's true that WP:SILENCE applies to us all, even someone without a COI or PAID issue would be expected to use the talk page if someone at some point felt discussion was warranted and challenged the edits that were made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Marchjuly and thank you for your answer, tips and ideas! Seems that I keep learning new things after over 10 years of active editing and over 15,000 edits. :) I've now corrected the link to the Admins' board archive and added talk quotes. I'm a soloentrepreneur so my time is very limited, and that's why I'm selling editing services based on time. If I started charging about the discussions with other Wikipedia editors that would be out of the understanding of my customers and also difficult to measure. If I needed to wait for answers for months it would just not work – as Wikipedians are volunteers I cannot push them answer right away. I try to start proper discussions on Neste's Talk page soon about the content that should be changed so I'm thankful if some of the people following this board would come and evaluate the situation.Jjanhone (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jjanhone. It might be a good idea for you to replace the AN comments you copied and pasted onto your talk page with a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325#Blocking a paid Wikipedia editor or maybe clarify things a bit by using a template such as {{talk quote}}. The way you added that content makes it seem (at least at first glance) that each one of those editors posted their comment on your user talk page and not as part of a discussion on some other page. This is a bit misleading and might even be a problem per WP:CWW.As for WP:PAID, each Wikipedia project is different with their own respective communities. Perhaps the Finnish Wikipedia community is a bit more tolerant of PAID editing, but many on English Wikipedia are quite suspicious of it. That's probably why PAID editors on English Wikipedia are encouraged to use article talk pages to make WP:ERs except for really uncontroversial edits. In principle, a PAID editor should be OK as long as they adhere to relevant policies and guidelines even when they directly edit articles themselves, but big changes or additions tend to be seen (perhaps unfairly) by many as not a good thing. Have you tried following WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement? Perhaps that would be one way to gain the trust of others. If you can establish to others that your edits are not a problem because you're PAID, then perhaps they might be willing to cut you some more slack after a little time has passed. Is there some reason why you need to be the one who makes the changes you want to make? Are you working under some kind of time constraints that make edit requests not very practical? While it's true that WP:SILENCE applies to us all, even someone without a COI or PAID issue would be expected to use the talk page if someone at some point felt discussion was warranted and challenged the edits that were made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- See my talk page for a long discussion we had about my paid editing on October 2020 on admins' noticeboard. I think I got permission to continue editing then. I added 33,854 characters to Neste's article so if I proceeded with request edits it would be very complicated IMHO. If you know a good process who to do it please tell me! 16,161 characters (about 48 %) are still live. The content is translated from the Finnish Wikipedia article and as we've been using notable media sources it should be ok so I see no reason why they would not be ok for English Wikipedia as well. Jjanhone (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jjanhone, if you're being paid to edit you generally should make specific edit requests on the article's talk page using the {{request edit}} template (and disclosing that you are paid to edit the article). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've edited the Neste article in Finnish which was then translated to English and I've added the text here and I'm happy to get improvement ideas or feedback about the page. Should we discuss about the edits here or on the article's talk page? I've removed stuff from Neste's own releases, and replaced links to WWF's and Greenpeace's releases and added a media source instead of them. It was a bit hard to edit the page as Beagel kept removing stuff before I had had time to make the whole picture clear. So the article is not what I had in mind in the first place. See the Finnish article [4] with help of translator and see if it is ok or not. I've used mainly notable media sources on the article. Jjanhone (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Robbie Blackwell
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Robbie Blackwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Robbie Blackwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Robbie Blackwell has repeatedly created unsourced autobiographies of themself. They don't appear to have responded to any of the many warnings or speedy deletion templates. There was an IP editor, who I can estimate is probably Robbie Blackwell themself who had simply logged out, who has removed the speedy deletion tag from the most recent article. In full disclosure, I restored it in a somewhat |"ignore the rules" fashion (technically, only article creators are disallowed from removing CSD tags).I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- noting that the user in question has now been blocked. Blablubbs|talk 12:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
G Fuel
- G Fuel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- GFUEL212121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On the article G Fuel a new account with 'GFUEL' in its username removed the word 'caffeinated' from two sentences. There seems to be some controversy(?) over said caffeination. This seems suspicious, though there's not enough evidence to say that they're definitively paid. What do you guys think? MuBoSko (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- MuBoSko I'm just curious that your account was created 8 hours ago and you are already reporting COI. That's fast learning :-) Vikram Vincent 04:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram I actually have another account, but even that one is relatively new- I just use the name of my other account elsewhere, so I wanted to make a 'safe' account for reverting vandalism in case I get anyone mad at me and they want to follow me off the site. That's pretty off-topic, though. I hope I replied to this correctly, it's my first time using a talk page. MuBoSko (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- MuBoSko Oh cool! I assume you are already familiar with Template:User_alternative_account_name but sharing it if you are not. Best! Vikram Vincent 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram Thanks, I haven't seen that specific userbox before (or maybe I have and I just don't remember it). That said, I think putting the name of the main account on this one's userpage would sort of defeat the purpose of having this one, but I found a similar box that I'll be using now. Thank you, and if you want to reply to this it's better to do it on my talk page. Additional edit: if necessary I can contact a checkuser and verify the other account? MuBoSko (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- MuBoSko Oh cool! I assume you are already familiar with Template:User_alternative_account_name but sharing it if you are not. Best! Vikram Vincent 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram I actually have another account, but even that one is relatively new- I just use the name of my other account elsewhere, so I wanted to make a 'safe' account for reverting vandalism in case I get anyone mad at me and they want to follow me off the site. That's pretty off-topic, though. I hope I replied to this correctly, it's my first time using a talk page. MuBoSko (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- So I've put a uw-coi msg on the user talk page. I suppose if they continue editing the article then the matter could be escalated. PS: MuBoSko When you create a report on any of the discussion forums, it is important to notify the said editor(which I have done now). Vikram Vincent 10:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram Thank you, I’ll do that in the future. Is there a template I could/should copy and paste, or will anything letting them know work? MuBoSko (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- MuBoSko Have a look at Category:Wikipedia_behavioral_guidelines. Each category will link to specific templates. Best! Vikram Vincent 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vincentvikram Thank you, I’ll do that in the future. Is there a template I could/should copy and paste, or will anything letting them know work? MuBoSko (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Jeffrey Zients
Discussion of interest to page watchers of this noticeboard here. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
How Do You Know?
- How Do You Know? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Triggered (Freestyle) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- The Way It Is (Keyshia Cole album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Crazy Kind of Love (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Never (Keyshia Cole song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Let It Go (Keyshia Cole song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tease Pillar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User admitted to me on my talk page (see) that they were a conflict of interest on several hip-hop/R&B music-related articles, after they were caught deliberately falsifying information regarding commercial success. Carbrera (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Voluntary Agency Network of Korea
- Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hamster0639 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I was googling some VANK stuff after talking (@kowiki) about Leemsj2075's VANK-like editing practices.
I found a news article, saying:
Original: 이 책자는 반크 청년 리더인 [REDACTED] 씨가 만들었다. 그는 전 세계 위키피디아에 울릉도와 동해 관련 정보를 올리고 있다. 반크는 이 책자를 전국의 1만 초·중·고교 교사와 학생에게 배포할 계획이다.
Translation: This booklet (about how to use Wikipedia as "Public Relations Platform", see below) was created by [REDACTED - realname],member ofVANK intern. He is uploading information about Ulleungdo and Dokdo on various language edition of Wikipedia. VANK is planning to distribute the booklet to various K-12 schools in Korea.
This "Booklet" was discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 16#FYI: VANK trying to manipulate Wikipedia. I found a screenshot at the news, caption saying "Wikipedia article he/she created". From there, I was able to identify Hamster0639 as the editor in question.
He has edits like Special:Diff/992063090, Special:Diff/992063476, and Special:Diff/992063732 which was reverted as WP:PROMO which shows sign of COI editing. Any opinions? — regards, Revi 13:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Edit: I originally thought the "반크 청년 리더" (the original word, underlined now) was some VANK slang for volunteers, but after further research I think it's their slang for... "intern". their official blog "작지만 의미있게 세계의 변화를 이끌어내고자 노력하는 반크청년리더!-글로벌 한국알리기를 실천하는 반크인턴 3인방 소개!" title starts with "반크 청년 리더" then use "인턴" (intern). So he or she was VANK intern in 2019, but I assume they are not now. — regards, Revi 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's troubling. Hamster0639, do you have a response? GeneralNotability (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Extensive COI edits by Cf2022
- Cf2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cf2022 has a paid editing disclosure on his or her User page stating that he or she works for the Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries at the Boston University School of Law. However, I am very concerned that he or she has made edits to many articles that (a) add only references to material published by his or her employer without adding any new text or (b) awkwardly wedge in brief quotes from material published by his or her employer. In other words, these edits appear to be primarily or exclusively promotional. I appreciate this editor making the required paid editing disclosure but the subsequent editing seems to be a gross violation of our norms and expectations for COI editors. I'd appreciate some additional input on this and, if necessary, help cleaning up these edits. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty unambiguous paid promotional editing counter to the goals of Wikipedia. "The goal of our ongoing WIkipedia Editing project is to help create increased exposure to faculty work and scholarship." In other words, pure marketing. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I naturally expect a paid editor to have some kind of slant towards their employer's interests, which (at least per current consensus standards) may not be problematic in and of itself. However, spamming the links of the employer in articles and adding nothing else obviously has no encyclopaedic purpose at all. Their quote addition to Special:Diff/992405689, whilst its inclusion can be debated, obviously the context it was added in it doesn't make sense and was just some quick addition of employer's work. Similar for Special:Diff/992427948, and most of the recent editing history really. Editing timestamps speak for themselves, too. So, all-in-all, this just looks like spam to me. If the editing can be rectified into more thoughtful additions of employer's citations (along with some useful prose, which is in context, and a helpful addition to the article), that may be more acceptable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- That having been said, at a broader look of contribs I think this kind of subtle lead spamming on a mass-scale is a time-sink for volunteers to clean up, and does a disservice to readers by degrading the quality/relevance of the article. If it's just a ref not so problematic, but it's also inserting useless content to justify the ref. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm really sorry. I only started using Wikipedia to edit sources this year, and I wasn't aware that I was violating any standards by adding primary references that expanded on points if I had declared a COI. I thought if it was a declared COI it would be okay. I am not attempting to participate in any spamming. I truly wasn't aware it was an issue. From now on I'll either add more thoughtful additions (as was nicely suggested by ProcrastinatingReader) or just suggest the addition of a reference on a talk page (as was suggested by ElKevbo). Do you have any additional suggestions to make sure I don't violate any more rules? cf2022 (talk)
Having a wikipedia article is now a criterion for Twitter verification
New Twitter verification policy here it looks like Wikipedia is now a factor in establishing notability for twitter profiles, especially those of "Companies, brands, and organizations", as well as "Activists, organizers, and other influential individuals" I would expect more undisclosed promotional editing as a result of this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- This was brought up earlier today at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oh,_boy (and I pointed to that discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to try to keep discussions in one place but still let interested watchers know). Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- There was nobody discussing this on the RSN at the time of posting or when you made your comment, and the RSN is not the relevant place to bring up the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I hope they're intending on making a donation to the WMF at least, since they've decided to reap the rewards of the resources of volunteer efforts at AfD/AfC/NPP (which are only going to increase). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- The New York Young Republican Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gwax23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 207.38.146.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2600:1017:b81e:c8eb:d93c:3f81:2df:b882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 50.253.45.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 38.70.19.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This page bears all the hallmarks of COI editing. The creator of the page has a similar name as the leader of the organization Shortly after I cleaned up the article and told the creator of the page, Gwax23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to disclose any COI before editing, a number of IP numbers popped up to restore poorly sourced trivia to the article. I strongly suspect both COI and sockpuppetry. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Joe Lonsdale
- Joe Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Campbellcm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mchlasta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Orchid013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a more article-wide issue, so I'm not sure if this is the right place. Various IPs and SPAs (possibly COIs or UPEs) are continuously editing the article Joe Lonsdale. It seems like new accounts will edit for a week to a month or more and then stop, around the time I usually leave a message about possible COI or start reverting/cleaning up their edits. They continuously restore a CV-like section to the page,[5][6][7] and I've left messages on their talk pages and on the article's talk page. I only recently (today) left a COI message for the most recent editor (Orchid013), but they have also been removing the COI tag on the article.
I haven't been able to engage them in any discussion (which is starting to feel hard to do, since I assume the accounts will keep changing). IP edits also seem to be one-and-done[8] (so I'm not sure if anything can be done about that), and sometimes just sound like general COI/UPE editing.[9][10][11][12] - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Mid-Am Racing Series
- Mid-Am Racing Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Grablife5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Grablife5 claims to the the owner of the subject-matter, and wants to control it; is now demanding that it be deleted if he can't control it. Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- N.B. We're having a discussion at Grablife5's talk page, initiated after this thread at the help desk [13]. With luck we can sort this out civilly. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Possible problems at Jake Sullivan
- Jake Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- AleatoryPonderings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2A00:23C8:5914:7E01:2410:3FAC:BD7:C925 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2607:EA00:107:3407:192E:A523:E24C:62AF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The first IP listed removed properly sourced information on the subject's connection to Uber. Numerous other edits have been made from naked IPs from Minnesota, apparently from the subject's hometown and home state, and the University of Minnesota, where the subject's father was a professor. AleatoryPonderings seems oddly defensive even though I think she added this content herself. I can't tell exactly what is going on but given the timing of Jake Sullivan's pending political appointment, the nature of the content in dispute, and the geographic evidence, I would say this merits a look from people more experienced than me.125.227.90.115 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Give me a break. This IP accused me of being affiliated with the Biden campaign because I … edited articles related to the Biden campaign. Their accusations are not credible. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- You are not only mischaracterizing my arguments but also engaging in ad hominem attacks.125.227.90.115 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- This edit also adds some context.125.227.90.115 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- As does this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- This edit also adds some context.125.227.90.115 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- You are not only mischaracterizing my arguments but also engaging in ad hominem attacks.125.227.90.115 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Great. There is still a lot of quacking here not necessarily related to you. Take a look at Urban Alliance Foundation, which was started by Zientz. Almost everywhere I see a recent political nominee, I see major shenanigans. This isn't all about you. That is one of the reasons I have been using language quite carefully.125.227.90.115 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- And of course this [14] just happened. This entirely consistent with COI editing.125.227.90.115 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- And the place the IP address is associated with is consistent with the subject's former employer.125.227.90.115 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Gleam Futures Paid Editing Operation
- Max Bowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tanya Burr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Love Island (2015 TV series, series 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Louise Pentland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Zoella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- DarkGlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All of these above people are on the Gleam Futures client roster. https://www.gleamfutures.com/uk-roster. I also have off-wiki evidence depicting a conversation between a Gleam Futures employee and a Wikipedia editor where she confesses that User:DarkGlow is operated by one of her colleagues at Gleam Futures. If you would like to see the evidence, get your email address to me.
and
user:reddirector also seemed to be involved at some point but it looks like their edit histories got oversighted.147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have never spoken to a Gleam employee in my life. These claims are clearly fake considering Love Island (a television series) and Max Bowden are not signed to Gleam... I do Wikipedia as a hobby, and have done for over two years. Does anyone really think I'd have done nearly 18,000 total edits for a few pennies from Gleam? That's laughable. What a ridiculous and malicious attack of my character. I don't have the time for this. – DarkGlow (✉) 19:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- That was a quick response. Why do so many of your clients overlap with the Gleam Futures client roster and why are your contributions to Gleam Future clients more hagiographic than your contributions to other pages?147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Quick as I was online when notified. I don't have "clients", and if the articles I edit "overlap" with Gleam's roster, that's because it's a familiar subject for me, so I know what I'm editing. I've watched the videos of these people, so I know enough about them to edit their page. Similarly with how I edit articles relating to soaps and musicians. Does that mean EastEnders or Little Mix hired me to improve their articles? No. And as for your claim of my edits being "more hagiographic" for these people, I only add sourced information per WP:BLP. And that will be found on every article I've edited. – DarkGlow (✉) 19:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I wonder what a CU report might reveal about your little operation.147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I still refute all of these ridiculous claims. It's also worth mentioning that Iamthecheese, who you claim to be involved, was last active in 2003, before Zoella's career even began. Did you draw our users from a hat? – DarkGlow (✉) 19:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- That was a quick response. Why do so many of your clients overlap with the Gleam Futures client roster and why are your contributions to Gleam Future clients more hagiographic than your contributions to other pages?147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- If there is off-wiki evidence, it should be sent to paid-en-wp wikipedia.org. MER-C 19:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The "off-wiki evidence" (VRTS ticket # 2020120610006413) says the opposite of what 147.78.5.79 claims above. They contacted a representative of Gleam Futures, who said that neither of these editors have any connection to the company. This accusation is seems entirely baseless and certainly not ground for a CheckUser. And since 147.78.5.79 expressly has no interest in contributing to Wikipedia and is apparently only here to harass DarkGlow, I've blocked them. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikimench100
- Alice (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Eduardo Montes-Bradley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Heritage Film Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Samba on Your Feet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Julian Bond: Reflections from the Frontlines of the Civil Rights Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rita Dove: An American Poet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Discos Qualiton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Searching-4 Tabernero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- White: A Season in the Life of John Borden Evans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Contrakultura Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Harto The Borges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ricardo Ernesto Montes i Bradley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (inserting Eduardo's name into the article)
- Monroe Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikimench100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ocantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sabonarola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I came across this editor when I saw the AfD discussion for the article Alice (2020 film), which has major issues with notability. I was going to just warn the editor and bring it up here, but it looks like this editor has been active since 2011 and to date their edits seem to be focused on editing articles related to Montes-Bradley.
Some of the COI edits are more subtle. There are edits where Wikimench100 edits articles about the persons or events Montes-Bradley covers in his films. This can be seen as a possible conflict of interest in this situation, since some of the edits were to link to the topic articles, which in turn link to the documentary films. The editor was warned in the past about notability guidelines for films, yet they were still making articles with sourcing issues - most recently the Alice film - which implies that their main goal is to promote.
They do make mention on their talk page about the Heritage Film Project that gives off the impression that they work for them in some context, but they are never fully transparent about it and don't mention this on any of the talk pages for the articles they've edited or created.
I've blocked the editor, but I think this still needs to be discussed and cleaned up, since there seems to be a lot of this sort of editing going on through the years. I'm still digging and will add more as I find it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Example of insertion of his name into articles: [15], [16], [ ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think that this is pretty much a good example of why it's really, REALLY not a good idea to edit on articles with a COI - I think they may have had good intentions at some level, but this is just too much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- User Sabonarola is also potentially related, as they edit many of the same articles and also created Department of Urology, University of Virginia, which seems like it's likely notable but uses a source that links back to the Montes-Bradley article. They haven't edited since 2011, but this does imply that there may be more COI accounts here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Another possible COI account: Ocantos, inactive since 2014 but also editing on similar articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) Since you've already blocked the editor, they aren't going to be able to respond here until they've been unblocked. They did, however, post an unblock request here where they've sort of agreed to your suggestion of a self-imposed topic ban. COI editing is not really prohibitted per se and not really a blockable offense in and of itself, and blocks usually happen when it leads to more serious issues. So, unless you suspect this editor is violating WP:PAID (which might be the case), all that I think can be done here is to encourage them to follow WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and then to make sure their edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. An editor repeatedly creating "bad" articles seems to be more of a WP:CIR, WP:NOT or WP:NOTHERE problem than a COI problem; for sure, COI may be a contributing factor, but there are many COI and PAID editors who have no problem editing in accordance with policies and guidelines. So, if they agree with the unblock terms you laid out, then perhaps WP:ROPE is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's reasonable - I do lean more towards inclusion than exclusion. As long as they play by the rules from here on out, I'm fine with that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since you've now listed other accounts as well, then there might be a WP:SOCK matter that would clearly be a blockable offense; however, I don't think that can really be resolved here. Maybe clarifying about not only about COI, but also about SOCK could be another condition for getting unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- I kind of think that may be a meatpuppetry type of deal, since it may be a case of students editing alongside the main. It definitely needs to be clarified, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm putting check marks next to the articles that seem to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 08:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's reasonable - I do lean more towards inclusion than exclusion. As long as they play by the rules from here on out, I'm fine with that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) Since you've already blocked the editor, they aren't going to be able to respond here until they've been unblocked. They did, however, post an unblock request here where they've sort of agreed to your suggestion of a self-imposed topic ban. COI editing is not really prohibitted per se and not really a blockable offense in and of itself, and blocks usually happen when it leads to more serious issues. So, unless you suspect this editor is violating WP:PAID (which might be the case), all that I think can be done here is to encourage them to follow WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and then to make sure their edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. An editor repeatedly creating "bad" articles seems to be more of a WP:CIR, WP:NOT or WP:NOTHERE problem than a COI problem; for sure, COI may be a contributing factor, but there are many COI and PAID editors who have no problem editing in accordance with policies and guidelines. So, if they agree with the unblock terms you laid out, then perhaps WP:ROPE is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Saša Toperić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vania Toperich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 80.101.96.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jroberts.tln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Dino.hajric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Howdy. I ran across the article Saša Toperić today. It basically reads like a resume. Can I get a second opinion on what to do with it? Some of the problems I see are...
- At least one COI editor. You can see in the article's edit history.
- Notability problems. Most or all of the sources are primary/poor. Lots of dead links too.
- NPOV/undue weight problems. The article talks about (imo) non notable things.
I was wondering if I should nominate it for deletion, but then I noticed he's a published author with 8 books. They're all from the "Brookings Institute". The books do appear to have ISBN's.
I guess I could slap some tags on it. Which tag(s) do you recommend? Any other actions? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Novem Linguae, the first thing to note is that as is this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, it is made clear (in red letters at the top of this page and as a warning when you edit this page), that you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion here. You should do that now. I would also suggest the first step prior to that would be to leave the editor a WP:COI warning on their talk page and see if they respond, which is what I have just done. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Melcous. Ok. According to edit summaries, looks like the following 4 editors have COI. I've left a COIN notice on their talk pages.
-
- Vania Toperich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 80.101.96.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jroberts.tln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Indef blocked in June. Block summary is "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: COI editing and socking (User:Yadalloc)"
- Dino.hajric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
TheRedundancy -- possible COI
I filed this action for an editor that I believe might have a WP:COI. I mention that in the filing. Please comment there:
--David Tornheim (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking for advice
This is not about a conflict of interest in an existing article, more looking for advice through this thicket.
I have been a Wikipedia editor for 17 years and an admin for most of that. Since maybe 2006, I've been more focused on Commons, and am also an admin there. As of December 2020, I am in the process of retiring from a career in software development, and am returning to performing music professionally, something I left somewhat behind circa 1980 when I went into software, and more so since 1990, when my career took a turn that required more focus.
I may be going into a partnership on creating a performance venue with two people who cannot yet be named, one of whom has a (quite solid) Wikipedia article, the other of whom deserves one almost as much, but does not have one. The latter person is about my age, and their heyday was pre-Internet. I'm in the process of gathering clippings, etc. but this may be tricky. I can't yet reveal their identity and my connection because the deal isn't yet solid, and in any case will not be announced until deals are made, papers are signed, etc, probably late January but it could take longer.
Obviously, I am the dead wrong person to write the article. I assume that the way through this is to pass the "clippings file" to some other editor and let them write the article; if this were to happen soon, I'd need some way to have confidentiality, at least the next 4-6 weeks and possibly longer, about even my connection to this person. And how do I make arrangements with that other editor? Even on-wiki discussion would let the cat out of the bag, since people would see who took this on and it would be obvious what article they then wrote.
Can someone tell me how best to proceed? - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: This might be stating the obvious, but... just don't do anything? Making elaborate arrangements to have the article written without your involvement being known is going to look a lot like commissioning someone to make COI edits on your behalf. And aside from your real-life business deals with them, there doesn't seem to be any reason why we need to have an article on this person now as opposed to in six weeks, six months, etc... – Joe (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose that's right. Wait until we announce the deal, and then I can openly pass the clipping file to someone else. Really, this is a case of a surprising omission. If you'll promise me confidentiality, I'll pass you a biographical article on him from 1979 (yes, he and I are not young) and you'll see what I mean. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just like all COI and UPE are asked, do an AFC and disclose your relation. Wait 2-3 months for an Admin to approve or deny.Martinvince (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose that's right. Wait until we announce the deal, and then I can openly pass the clipping file to someone else. Really, this is a case of a surprising omission. If you'll promise me confidentiality, I'll pass you a biographical article on him from 1979 (yes, he and I are not young) and you'll see what I mean. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Benjamin Gordon (businessman)
- Benjamin Gordon (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Krutapidla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Martinvince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bengee123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kolma8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Multi-way finger-pointing contest regarding alleged UPE at Benjamin Gordon (businessman).
See [17] by Krutapidla2, [18] by Martinvince, and [19] by Bengee123.
When I first heard about this matter, I put indefinite full protection on the article; however, I will be lifting that protection shortly; anyone else is welcome to do whatever they deem appropriate. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gordon invested money in a company that later went bankrupt. Someone kept adding what is said to be misinformation to the article regarding Gordon's role in the failure. That material has now been oversighted. So if editing continues on this article (i.e. if the page isn't deleted per the current AfD) people will need to keep an eye on the BLP issues. (See WP:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Gordon (businessman) for some of the issues. The AfD includes references). From what remains in the history, it appears that the negative info may have originally come from Special:Contributions/128.8.127.130. User:Bengee123 was taking out the negative information and Krutapidla2 was putting it back. User:Krutapidla2 may not have been aware that some of the text was claimed to be misinformation. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have disclosed that I am a paid editor already and described the issue. Please note editor User:Kolma8 has vote against this page to be deleted and made some edits. At first look it would seem he is removing promotional language, but he also removed 2 references to make the page look less credible. His arguments in the delete page don't stand. I have a good feeling that is the same Pakastani UPE from freelancer site using multiple accounts. I am adding him to the investigation list above. His edit history shows that he is editor for one year. Could you please also lock the page maybe for 2 more weeks until the dust settles. Martinvince (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
MutualArt.com
- MutualArt.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bodokh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has disclosed their affiliation (i.e., employee of MutualArt.com) here. Now it seems they need some guidance on WP:COI issues (which is rather behavioural than content-related, hence less suitable for WP:DRN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)