Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
oh dear. forgot to use colons, must be due to my inexperience here. Haha
I think some logged out time will be some good
Line 653: Line 653:


:::With respect to paid editing, our readers expect us to be independent of the topics we write about. If we become less and less independent our reputation will be harmed. Paid editing thus does not risk harming **just** your reputation it risks harming the reputation of all of us, and thus why many of us are against those with advanced privileges being allowed to take up the practice. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
:::With respect to paid editing, our readers expect us to be independent of the topics we write about. If we become less and less independent our reputation will be harmed. Paid editing thus does not risk harming **just** your reputation it risks harming the reputation of all of us, and thus why many of us are against those with advanced privileges being allowed to take up the practice. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

===Salvidrim===
Not going to make any resignation announcement today, or tomorrow, or this week. See [[User:Salvidrim!]]. I'd be happy to come to an agreement on some level of community sanctions w/r/t paid editing (such as no more paid edits, no approving paid AfCs/edit-requests/PERM-requests or whatever else needs to be agreed upon) but many commenters above have said there were not interested in discusing that: they want desysopping by shame or by force. I still don't think the COI mishandling (resulting in the AfC collusion or alt-perm assignment) requires desysopping; the AfC collusion could have happened with or without the admin tools, and the alt-perm mistake was acknowledged and reverted (and not particularly griveous or requiring an emergency desysop). I don't think there was a pattern of abuse of tools of behaviour unbecoming of an admin (which is what ArbCom usually looks for). I do think there was a mishandling and underestimating of how strongly and openly COI needs to be tackled and reviewed, and am happy to discuss what restrictions should be put in place to ensure it doesn't become a recurrent problem. This is probably the last I'll say for a while on-wiki unless there is agreement to resolve this with community sanctions (to be agreed upon), or if I end up having to defend at ArbCom. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 18:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


== DeviceLock ==
== DeviceLock ==

Revision as of 18:12, 21 November 2017

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    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:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Bibby Line
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Capital One
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Comcast
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Liberty Towers
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Marbella Apartments
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Monero
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Obama Foundation
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Vicki Psarias
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    User talk:Rob 0017/Wurdian
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rainer K. Sachs
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn

    More spam socks

    The above accounts got CU blocked for spamming using a VPN. I've seen this abuse pattern before -- one or two spamlinks interspersed with lots of potentially legit edits (I didn't waste my time on detailed checks, I just blanket reverted them). After a semi-automated search through the domains they have added, I make the following observations:

    These domains were probably spammed and/or are used in other likely UPE "articles" (view said additions via the COIBot links):

    The following domains were almost certainly spammed:

    Thoughts on what to do with these? MER-C 08:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A sample of the fake news sites took me to the articles & creators listed above. Definitely looks like PR, needs deeper look. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Come to think about it, there was at least one more fake news site:
    The list of filtered (less than 20 live links) domains is here, starting with hydrocarbonengineering.com. MER-C 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is more of the same, including some of the same articles, which is what drew my attention here. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they've found a new webhost. Forgot to mention
    got CU blocked by being on the same VPN as these spammers. MER-C 05:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering

    The editor has acknowledged that he is Miller (see here for example) and has in the past contributed positively to articles on which he has expertise. However more recently he has re-written the article on the department he heads and begun creating multiple redirects and articles for his colleagues (some of which have already been deleted as either copyright violations or non-notable). There are thus clear WP:COI concerns. In a recent comment on my talk page he says "My staff and I spend hours putting that material together", so I am also asking if this suggests WP:PAID concerns. Melcous (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank-you for the consideration and effort. Originally the article had a list of the faculty of the department, this was prepared as part all of the information we have for the strategic review and a new department director. The original history of the department had only been in a series of IEEE Historical interview of department directors.
    Everything on the page is absolutely historically accurate. The category of difficulty was originally called "faculty" not "noteable faculty". The page was modelled after the page of Oxford Department of Computer Science which is one of the most highly ranked departments in the world in computer science. BME department at JHU is highly ranked as well. Under "faculty" all faculty were listed, with no distinction (not called noteable). Rather, for the "noteable category" only National Academy award members were originally listed in page, only the 4-6 faculty were listed with National Academy under noteable.
    Also all of the areas of the discipline that BME faculty engage and teach classes were listed-These were part of the strategic vision taken from a report based on Nature Biomedical Engineering with a citation, as those became the areas that the strategic vision organizes around. The editor trying to make the article better changed the title of faculty to "noteable faculty" and removed all of the names, and as well all of the topics. Is it not possible to continue to have a BME webpage which emulates the Oxford Computer Science page with all faculty listed in a tenure category different from "noteable"?
    Thank-you for your consideration and deliberations. Respectfully Mim.cis (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Mim.cis this is not the place to discuss specific edits to the article - that's what the talk page is for. This noticeboard is for discussing the conflict of interest guidelines, that is whether you have understood them and are abiding by them. Melcous (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with conflict of interest, is that the person with the COI is not a suitable person to judge what should be included in the article. In my experience with academics here writing about themselves or their projects, about half of them try to say too much, and about half too little. It is appropriate for you to add the information to WP, but according to our current practice, you should write additional articles about faculty in the department using the Article Wizard in Draft space, and suggest additions and changes on the article talk pages. If you wan to write about specific subjects in the field, I think you can do it directly and we're glad to have you, but be sure you do not write them to emphasize JHU people. Incidentally, according to our WP:PROF guidelines, there may be more notable faculty in your department than you think--in addition to members of the National Academies, very highly cited researchers also meet WP:PROF, and I would be surprised if this did not apply to at least all the full professors in your department. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SEO and PR on hotels articles

    For more context see

    Fairmont, Raffles and Swisshotel have apparently hired SEO and/or PR firms to buff up their articles here. I'll add some more comments anon. One of the actors is Blueberry Hill, formerly named 3Q Digital Harte Hanks (the name of a SEO/SEM firm). I've added them to the Barbequeue sockpuppet investigation. Qwacker isn't yet named in any investigation I know of, and has been active editing today, so I'm inviting him now to comment on all of this.

    One of the more nauseating aspects of all this is an apparent retaliatory set of complaints lodged against Beyond My Ken which asserted that the articles were so well written they were beyond reproach and any attempted cleanup was focused on the declared-paid status of the editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, of course I will comment on this. No I am not some SEO or PR agency. I don't think what I edited was SEO-focused (just refs and 2 external links max). I am not a PR agency looking to ameliorate some brand's page either, I just pick up topics and search them exhaustively because that's the kick I get out of it. I liked editing those hotels' pages because they own or manage crazy buildings, and with my "slight" paranoia on free-masonry, I just dove in. Please do reproach things to my edits, I myself do not believe they are perfect, far (far) from it. I don't mind the mandatory investigation on my profile as I am not related to the other user you mention above, and I do not have other accounts on Wikipedia. I am available to answer more questions if you have any. --Qwacker (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association Airlines for Europe, the Russian company Novaport, the Fairmont/Raffles chain and associated people, Régis Schultz a European corp executive, Sok Kong a Cambodian executive. More exec/philanthropist stuff, resorts, all this about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Wikipedia on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). --Qwacker (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edits happen to be to articles about hotels and other travel industry-related (not "economy-related") subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the "duck test" is a method of determining whether two accounts are WP:SOCKPUPPETS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably also one of those coincidences that Blueberry Hill stopped editing in January 2016 [1], while you -- although you had 17 edits before January 2016 -- didn't start editing for real until then [2]? The coincidences start to accumulate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of UPE from Investigator87


    I did a quick cleanup at Oliver Isaacs but I could only take so much. Honestly it would be a good WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been proposed by another editor at Talk:Oliver Isaacs to WP:TNT the article due to unfixable copyvio issues. Other thoughts are welcome ☆ Bri (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like some sock/meat activity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs. At least two WP:SPAs have appeared to register Keep votes, and two others that left comments were blocked by Berean Hunter from a CU investigation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI open now here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On the same AFD we have:

    whose set of oddball promotional article creations reek of UPE. I've already declined an unblock request from this user for a very suspect mistake so I'll hold off blocking for now. MER-C 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I concur that (Richardaldinho is likely a paid editor given the history of the articles. DGG had tagged some of them for G5, and I deleted one, but it was raised to me by Sro23 they are technically on a 2 week CU block for vote staking, not for UPE, so I've sent one of them to AfD currently. All of these articles meet the signs of UPE: [3], [4], [5] and in terms of article style remind me a bit of this group, but that could simply be the likely UPE. Regardless, I would support a UPE block based on spamming, but won't do it myself given that I deleted and then restored a G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Richardaldinho creations and cleanup includes stuff listed above. I'm a bit confused -- can we g5 these or not? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The G5 has been contested by an SPI clerk as he is only blocked now for vote staking. That might change depending on the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vierouchka. We can either wait to see how that SPI plays out, or PROD/AfD when necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tove Lill Løyte

    User continually adds unsourced information to the article despite despite multiple warnings. Claims to be the manager of the article's subject. Continues to edit despite COI warning. Bakilas (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:BLG Logistics

    I wrote a draft of an article about BLG Logistics. This is Paid Edit and also a translation from the de.wikipedia.org. The appropriate information/tags I have already attached.

    The draft is not promotional in my opinion. It has a detailed section about the company's history. In addition, the company’s present is shown. Figures are, unless otherwise possible, substantiated by the Annual Report or the Financial Report. This information is subject to financial supervision, misrepresentations would be punishable. Sometimes such corporate sources are only a supplement, because there are corresponding press articles, which are also indicated.

    About a feedback, what is ok and what should be changed if necessary, I would be glad. Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend waiting for AfC feedback and going from there. Please do not edit this article in mainspace. Have you read WP:Identifying PR to make sure you avoid common issues? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cpicciolini

    Editor (apparently the subject) continues to make edits after having been warned. Anyone with an article about them sees it as a promotional tool to be controlled. I warned the editor almost a year ago but the behavior continues. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jama masjid chalakpur

    I can see a clear conflict of interest in this user. This user has been persistently creating pages related to himself. For example: this user has created Jama masjid chalakpur which this user's username. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Software Toolworks

    I have, and have declared, a COI for these articles, having been the founder of Toolworks, although not associated with it or any software company since 1994.

    Is it permissible for me to make minor changes to this article, such as adding a lead section, references or graphics? What about clarifications that do not substantially change the meaning? I would like to polish it without burdening volunteer editors, but not at the risk of my reputation or the article's. Bilofsky (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is advisable that substantive changes, such as adding text, references, and graphics, should be proposed by you on the relevant article's talk page. Editing the article directly for anything bigger than fixing a typo puts you in a minefield that you really don't want to be in. Thank you for doing this the right way. If you have trouble finding other editors to review things you put on the talk page, talk to me and I'll do it. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sport 360

    Pages
    Editors
    Websites


    All of the articles listed above, which appear to me to be non-notable events and organizations, were created by the account Events360 who appears to be an undisclosed paid editor focusing on subjects closely related to Sport 360. I have proposed deletion for a couple of the articles, but would like to have others have a look and see if prod or AFD would be appropriat for any of the others. Peacock (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Worse, those articles appear to be single-sourced to sport360.com. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    One America News Network ‎

    Editor is a WP:SPA in regards to these two articles about companies owned by Herring Networks. They have only used talk pages twice, once several years ago to tell an IP never to edit the AWE article after the IP had reinstated some critical material[6] and once to reply to my question on conflict of interest on their talk page. Their answer their was unsatisfactory. As you can see on their talk page, I'd asked a general question about the text in WP:PAID that says "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." The response, in the section above my question, was "Freemediatv is NOT related to Herring Networks or any of its holdings." I have two problems with this. One is that "Freemediatv" could be the name of a website[7] and my question was about the editor using the name. Secondly of course is that the answer doesn't rule out getting some form of compensation. I asked a second time and got no response. The editor has also recently edit-warred suggesting they feel some form of ownership of these articles. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At what point are we justified in adding Template:UPE to articles like this? Aside from the current activity OANN was originally created by a SPA who never edited on any topic other than OANN and AWE. Likewise there has been at least one SPA active at AWE. (I strongly suspect those two accounts are/were operated by the same person.) It's seems clear what's going on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting 24 hour block handed out at 3RRN. Block has expired. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest we topic-ban Freemediatv from these articles. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Abraham Zangen

    Appear to be paid editing. Refs added as an afterthought.

    The prior version of this Brainsway had issues.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like we have seen several things here lately driven by transcranial magnetic stimulation devices and technologies. Yes? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maximiliano Korstanje

    This article was started by a WP:SPA, Vanrobert99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Virtually all substantive edits are by a series of IPs with no history other than this article and adding his books to other articles, e.g. 186.129.165.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.1.250.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IPs geolocate to Argentina, where the subject lives.

    Most of the references are to his own work, including books published via notorious academic vanity press([8]) IGI Global.

    I would like some support for at least aggressive cleanup if not outright deletion, please. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Urban informatics

    Call me a nasty suspicious bastard, but this article is flagged COI and the WP:SPA user is very keen to include a book published by notorious vanity press IGI Global -to the point of rapidly reverting removal despite not having any actual activity on Wikipedia (example: [9] reverting in less than two hours, despite the user's last edit to Wikipedia being weeks before). [10] also adds an IGI published book. I smell a COI, and at the very least a massive dose of WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Will be indulging in a massive cleanup/CE soon.Winged Blades Godric 08:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kent Tate

    The entire five-year edit history of user account centers only on Kent Tate, suggesting that she is connected to subject in some manner. The article itself is promotional in tone, including an upload of an excessive number of images to Commons. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user does seem to be able to use talkpages in the past, and I've politely (non-template) invited comment here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I constructed this article and have been the primary contributor. I have made efforts to add content that is in compliance. If you can help me to resolve the problems on this page I would be very grateful. Cheri Brown (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Article has been draftified. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kuo-Chen Chou

    May be salvageable, but this looks like autobiography to me. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reedsy created by founder

    Creator has added a link to his userpage which self-identifies as founder of the firm. I think he best thing to do is draftify Reedsy and let it go through AfC. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri::- Done Winged Blades Godric 08:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So this was just "re-floated" by User:Tomwsulcer bypassing AFC and the article history wiped clean, both of which I find problematic. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject Reedsy is clearly notable. I'm not affiliated with Reedsy in any way so there's no conflict of interest. I've been revamping Self publishing and saw the Reedsy link light up red, and scratched my head. That an earlier version had a COI problem is not relevant here. This is a rewritten article with appropriate sourcing and fluff removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick glance, I think clearly notable is a bit of an exaggeration here. I'd give it a 50/50 shot at AfD, at best, maybe 60/40 in favour of deletion. Bri, I haven't run it through duplication detector yet, but I don't see a clear copyright problem in terms of prose. It appears to be different, and wouldn't necessarily require attribution if it was written independently. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per above, I went ahead and did a BEFORE search and took it to AfD to see what the community thinks. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedsy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Methinks you're clearly wasting everybody's time here at Wikipedia. It's clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tomwsulcer: When you created the article did you not include in the edit summary that it was "copyedited" and preserved references from the old version? This implies that you used the old version for reference does it not? You must attribute such material. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this relevant to the discussion? This noticeboard is Conflict of interest noticeboard. Regarding Reedsy, there's no conflict of interest at present. I floated the Reedsy article and I have no affiliation with Reedsy. You're wasting people's time here at Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the basis was the article created by a connected contributor, then it is relevant. Copyright is also usually very relevant on this noticeboard because there are questions of ownership of the material and reuse of text that might not be compatibly licensed. If you copied any text or remixed it in anyway from the previous article, you must attribute. If you did, you can place a note here and I'll make the edit summary attribution in a way that the draft can be deleted since there is a mainspace article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no copyright issues with Reedsy. I wrote it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not what was being asked: we know you wrote it in its current form. Did you use any or part of the text of the previous version/draft as the basis for the article and rework it? As Bri has pointed out, your edit summary suggests you did. If you did, there is currently a copyright issue until we attribute. Attribution is easy, and I can do it in less than a minute in most cases, and less than two when it is more complicated. We do need to make attribution if what the edit summary suggests is true, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hungarians in the United Kingdom

    User:Gabor Bartos has added himself as a "Famous Hungarian immigrants and Britons of Hungarian origin". I've had some email correspondence with him, where he admits he is the man concerned, but he is quite determined to have himself mentioned. Nigej (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    He'll have to understand that people don't get mentioned on Wikipedia simply because they want it. If he's notable enough to meet WP:NPOL, then someone not connected to him can write an article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ MoCity and related projects

    Requesting second opinion/more eyes on this set of related articles. I think the artist has notability (hard to tease out from the incestuous media relationships) but maybe one or more redirects are in order? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ENKWMS

    This is a very infrequent editor, who began editing in 2013. On his talk page he describes himself as a music enthusiast.

    In 2014, ENKWMS left the following message here on an editor's talk page: "I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I was asked to make edits on this article by representatives of this person. The information that I am submitting is factual and significant."

    This editor created two draft articles, the first about a band called "Live Footage" ([11]) in 2013/2014, and the second about the musician Hill Kourkoutis ([12]), on July 6, 2016. Interestingly, Live Footage (band) was successfully created on July 19, 2014, and Hill Kourkoutis was successfully created on July 5, 2016 by a single-purpose editor.

    The concern about paid editing began following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadeus (record producer). ENKWMS began leaving messages on user talk pages--in one instance leaving his personal email address--inquiring about how to restore the deleted Amadeus article (see [13][14][15][16]). A caution about COI/paid editing was left for this editor here on Nov. 12, 2017. This editor denied any COI/paid editing here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nimir

    He has admitted to his closeness to the production team of this film, through this edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Username is the name of their website designer/host; automatic WP:CORPNAME block. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proware

    Observe the ancient paid editor in its natural habitat. Keep quiet, it frightens easily. This is paid editing from back in 2006 and could use a look. I doubt it meets notability. ~ Rob13Talk 15:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wessex Institute of Technology

    Bluntly, I think this article is a scam. I am unable to trace any good evidence that this is an actual degree-granting institution, it's "WIT Press" is listed by Beall as predatory, its conferences flag up hundreds of disparaging comments on the interwebs, and virtually the entire article is the wok of two WP:SPAs. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is wondrous, including three (3) pictures of the building and such essential academic facts as "local commoners have the right to graze their ponies" in the adjacent national park. I cut out the travel brochure stuff and a bunch of other badly sourced or unnecessary material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wessex"? Sounds fictional. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    KDS4444

    KDS4444 has been community banned for leveraging OTRS access into solicitation of paid editing. Concerns were brought up during that discussion that undeclared paid editing may have occurred. We probably should have some due diligence in checking over at least his most recent contributions. I've listed three creations just to kick off a discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see any evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Is there any evidence that I missed? KDS444 was very open about the articles they had been paid to edit. Of the list above, they specifically denied being paid to edit the now deleted Conso International Corporation article, and acknowledged payment for Tom Paradise. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, Paradise was declared. I have not done a significant look yet and just came across another editor's concern at AN. The specific comment was "how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not." BTW I was not involved with the KDS matter at that time, and did not contribute there. So this is kind of fresh for me and unresearched. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that there was undisclosed paid editing going on, and I'm left thinking that if there was KDS4444 would have declared it as they declared other articles which would not have otherwise been identified. Part of the problem is that we can never be sure that an article wasn't paid for, but similarly if there isn't anything to go by - such as a job ad, articles created by users who should not have had that much skill on their first edits, or self disclosure - it is almost impossible to tell if it is the case. Thus I tend to fall back on simply general principles - if it is overly promotional or of questionable notability, we should address the articles under those terms, but otherwise just go with what works best for the project. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. I haven't wrapped my head around this yet, it is such an egregious abuse of a position of trust. Which is why I felt it must be brought up at the one noticeboard created explicitly for such abuses. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The actions on OTRS were abysmal. My difficulty here is that there no evidence of undisclosed paid editing, and no method of determining if it did occur. So I'm not sure of how this can proceed. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Heads-up: I'm planning to write up this case and probably the Mister Wiki case as a news item for upcoming Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--I will agree with Bilby on the point that KDS444 did not seem to have indulged in any UPE.Winged Blades Godric 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. I think KDS4444 had pretty low standards for N and for sourcing anyway, which makes it very hard to distinguish his normal editing from paid editing. I think this is part of what made it so confusing for him that his paid edits were not received so well. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mister Wiki

    A newish paid editing company has been created called Mister Wiki (website). This company says that they honor the disclosure policy: "All of Mister Wiki’s jobs are fully transparent and disclosed on Wikipedia, in accordance with their paid editing guideline." (too bad they call it a guideline, but whatever)

    And indeed, the following two editors have disclosed editing for the company per this search:

    They have directly edited the following articles:

    rejected AfC submisssion was fixed up by Soetermans with disclosure and moved to mainspace by Salvidrim (Salvidrim said that this was prior to his being involved with them.)
    task was getting tags removed per this diff. Also per that diff, the strategy was to put through AfC. Was draftified by Salvidrim with disclosure, accepted at AfC by Soetermans (no disclosure, have an inquiry pending) (per this, not for pay, but via off-WP discussion among wiki-friends)
    same deal as above, task was getting tags removed per this diff. Also per that diff, the strategy was to put through AfC. Was draftified by Salvidrim with disclosure, accepted at AfC by Soetermans. (no disclosure, have an inquiry pending) (per this, not for pay, but via off-WP discussion among wiki-friends)
    just some minor tweaks, directly made.

    Am posting here so folks can review the created articles especially, as they have not undergone prior peer review.

    Have been having a long discussion with Salvidrim at my TP at User_talk:Jytdog#Re:_people_with_privileges_who_edited_for_pay. Inquiry at Soetermans' TP at User_talk:Soetermans#AfC_moves. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rgd File:Datari Turner studio.jpg uploaded by Soetermans, a) why is it hosted on enwp not Commons and b) where is the OTRS permission from the copyright holder? Bri.public (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged as missing permission. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone, I've tried to explain the AfC situation on my talk page. I am truly sorry for that mess. For the other articles, I'm just going to take a step back and let the community decide if they're okay. Further more, I've made edits to Arne & Carlos (diff), but I haven't received payment yet, which why I haven't added the disclaimer just yet. There is also an article in my sandbox on Overwerk, an article that has been deleted repeatedly. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dediced to not do any paid editing until this is resolved (I might still receive a fee for Arne & Carlos, when I do, I'll update my user page accordingly). I've been a longtime member of Wikipedia and do not want to risk damaging my reputation and credibility any further. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. This isn't going well so far. The swapping of "favours" between Salvidrim and Soetermans is particularly concerning and they are clearly conflicted even if they are not specifically paid for the edits. I'm at a loss to think how such experienced users thought that this would be acceptable. I also find this edit to Justin Bieber problematic (better seen in this diff) as it placed undue weight on the topic Soetermans was being paid to write about into a highly trafficked article - a classic example of spamming. I need to look in more detail, but the Shahidi brothers don't appear to be notable independent of their company. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no excuse. When @Salvidrim! asked me I had my concerns (see this screenshot) from our Facebook messenger conversation). I thought that the articles were notable enough and that it would be okay. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni, that image was used by @Salvidrim! on Jytdog's talk page with my permission. I assumed it would be okay to use it here as well. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored it since both parties have confirmed on-wiki that they are fine with the release. That was not immediately clear from your post. Sorry for any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I should've said so right away. Thanks for restoring the link to the image. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see how pally and keen you are to "help each other out". I'm seriously concerned about this, and will be investigating these edits -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be much less concerned about the Salvidrim/Soetermans interactions if Salvidrim were not an admin, and had he not recently run for RfB as well. It's possible that this should be brought up to the wider community. It's also possible that he should stop reviewing AfCs, and also stop NPP (if he is involved with that). Soetermans should stop doing either of those as well. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been removed from AfC. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am aware, mere removal from a list of participants doesn't stop you or anyone from reviewing AfCs or accepting drafts or moving drafts to mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right. Well, whatever the outcome of this discussion might be, I won't come near AfC for the time being. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal from the list means you can't use the AfC helper script, which makes accepts pretty annoying to do (though any autoconfirmed user can of course move drafts to mainspace.) Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added WolvesS to the list of users here since they also declared on these articles, and were the author of Dan Weinstein, one of the articles that was accepted by Soetermans. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, WolvesS authored both Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (and wrote part of Studio71) before MisterWiki's involvement, directly on the behalf of Studio71 -- originally without declaration but after I pressed them by e-mail they've added the declaration you linked to. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it does further my suspicions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CMCreator900 that he is part of an undeclared paid editing ring, yes. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog: your update with this diff raises more questions than answers for me. I get how contractor relationships vs. employment relationships work, but I have very serious concerns about two editors working for the same firm (though technically unpaid for the specific edits) assisting each other and "returning the favour" to publish their articles from draft space. The claim that an administrator solicited another paid editor from the same firm to "return a favour" and AfC approve articles that he had been paid to contribute to is in my opinion just as troubling as the recent OTRS drama if not more so.
      This is stretching the limits of the TOU in my opinion and show why we need a clearer local policy on these things. At the very least, I think that admission is conduct unbecoming of an administrator and personally, I think Salvidrim! should resign the sysop bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When I brought the two drafts up to Soetermans we both expressed concerns about the appearance of collusion but both ended up thinking that because the drafts looked fine and we were acting in good faith, everything would turn out okay. This was an error of judgement: careless, naive optimism that good-faith justifies all. Yes, I fucked up by allowing a fellow paid editor to review the AfC drafts that another paid editor had created and which I was paid to clean up. No, an editor being paid to accept a draft (or accepting the draft of a fellow editor paid by the same outfit even if they are not paid themselves) is not okay and constitutes a perversion of the AfC process, whether the intent was truly to deceive and bypass policy or not -- as Jytdog has said, what matters is appearance, and there is no way that what transpired here can appear proper or rule-abiding. No, I don't think an admission of fucking up by thinking everything was fine when we shouldn't have is grounds for beheading. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the most tense policy area of the community right now. We just site banned an OTRS agent for soliciting payments through that system, and there is currently a village pump discussion on people with advanced permissions not using their rights, but using their position within the community to evade scrutiny.
    You as a sysop actively asked an AfC reviewer to move an article you had been paid to edit out of draft space for you because you thought it's just kinda sad to leave the client waiting for potentially weeks and stated that the whole point of moving them back to draftspace was so that they could be afc-okayed and mainspaced again without the npov tags without having to go through WP:COIN. You also said before this that it feels like if someone was was looking for another reason to complain about paid editing, we'd be handing them one (Note: from FB messenger conversation both parties have agreed to disclose on-wiki).
    You knew this would be looked down on by the community, and you did it anyway. From a policy perspective you didn't use any of your rights, sure, but you did ask an AfC reviewer to use their position to review an article that you had edited for pay from the same firm that they were also being paid to edit Wikipedia from. Is that violating any of the written rules? Maybe, if you want the song and verse, Doc James gives an interpretation below. Regardless, I think what is clear is that you clearly broke the spirit of the rules of the single most controversial subject on the English Wikipedia currently with the explicit intent of benefiting a client, knew it would be controversial, and did it anyway. That is a breach of the trust we place in administrators and is why I think you should resign as a sysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    you did ask an AfC reviewer to use their position to review an article Soetermans reviewed those two drafts literally minutes after receiving the AfC rights. So it's seems like Soetermans got the rights to circumvent the process for Salvidrim. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 17:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paid editing does not JUST require the prior exchange of money for concerns to have occured. Our TOU states "any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation"
    • Thus one should be disclosing before the actual exchange of money. The disclosure should occur as soon as any expectation of compensation is present.
    • Doing something to help a partner make money with the expectation that they will help you make money in the same way is "compensation". This is the problem with paid editing and thus Sinclair states correctly "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
    • I support User:TonyBallioni request for Salvidrim! turning in the sysop bit. These sorts of activities have a significant potential to harm our shared brand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with TonyBallioni and Doc James. Nothing prsonal, but in my view paid editing and the sysop bit are mutually incompatible. Paid editing itself is a bone of contention, with a sizeable proportion of the Wikipedia community opposed to it entirely and for excellent reasons, I think going back to RfA with an open admission of editing for pay would be the only way to do this ethically. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Every on-wiki action I took against expectation of compensation has been properly disclosed on User:Salvidrim! (paid). Datari Turner predates any involvement with paid editing or any expectation of compensation or return-of-favours. However in the spirit of transparency if you'd rather I add it to the list nevertheless, I don't have any objections. I maintain that I don't think an admission of fucking up by thinking everything was fine when we shouldn't have is grounds for lynching but I understand that anti-paid-editing advocates might see this as further confirmation that paid-editing is a monster to be vanquished. If there ever is consensus that admins cannot also be paid editors no matter how much separation there is between the two roles, then of course I shall abide by that policy (and judging by VPP, it may well be heading that way). In the meantime, I won't already pre-decide which role I will hold on to (although if I had a gun to my head and 30 seconds to decide I'd cease paid editing and continue as an admin), should it become disallowed to do both. FWIW, I have been receiving nothing but praise for my admin actions as of late so I don't think there is any sentiment amongst the community that I am not fulfilling these duties adequately, all concerns stem solely from the dual roles and that's why I am keenly following the ongoing VPP discussion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Salvidrim, starting to use the language of "lynching" and martyrdom here is not helpful to you, and is going very much down the wrong path. (this is exactly the path KDS4444 chose, and it led him to do things that led to an indefinite block at AN). Please be resilient, like we expect of admins, and hear the problem. You did not understand your own COI nor that of Soetermans, and you used bad judgement and based on that bad judgement you did bad things. You didn't respect your own COI - the structure of the situation - nor the processes that the community has put in place to manage COI. (As Guy says, it is a not personal -- it is structural) You thought you were above all that, and you did backroom dealings between the two of you on a process with advanced privileges, instead of doing things correctly.
    We trust admins to have good judgement - that is the essence of granting the bit and what gets hashed over at every RfA. An admin who believes they are "above it all" is dangerous for anything, but especially on paid editing where there is the active external interest affecting judgement.
    By putting yourself above it all -- above the COI management process -- you left yourself, and your office, and AfC, naked and exposed to that external interest, and you made corrupt decisions. The COI management process protects everyone, including you. But you have to submit to it.. to come into it. Down here with the community. Because you are in a structure where we trust you, and you are putting yourself in a position of conflict of interest by choosing to edit for pay, you in particular need to be so, so clear that you will allow that COI to be fully managed and will be rigorous about that. While I believe that you understand the ... way what you did looks, what I (and i think everybody here) is looking for, is that sense that you are aware that COI can and has affected even you. The way you keep bringing up doing things in "good faith" is showing me, at least, that you don't see that your good faith is maybe not so "good" when you have a COI (when you have a client you want to help). This is the actual heart of the matter. Please understand that. Please. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything you have just said, I fully agree with. I underestimated the COI by thinking naively that because nobody seemed to be intentionally being nefarious, everything would turn out fine -- perhaps you would call that self-delusion or magic thinking. I've disappointed many people for, in the end, a mere handful of bucks, and it really makes me sad and angry at myself for allowing myself to be put in a situation where I am facing the opprobrium of fellow community members whom I hold in high regard. I am ashamed that I thought myself a paragon of integrity and believed myself "stronger" than any COI and fully able to manage it rigorously and without flaw, which evidently was not the case, since I ended up being proven human after all. I thought I was better than this, but evidently I underestimated the difficulty of the challenge. I apologize unreservedly for the disappointment. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the self-insight i was hoping to hear. Yes you are a human :) Thank you so much. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Le sigh. I am afraid you missed the point. The declarations you made would be sufficient for the normal grudging acceptance of paid editing, but that was not the point. This is about whether admins should engage in paid editing. I think it is unlikely that the community would be in favour, but the only ethical and honourable way to find out is to resign the bit and run another RfA on the basis of full disclosure of paid status. I urge you to do that. It is the decent thing. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly is emerging consensus on VPP against the use of permissions in the expectation of payment, but what is much less clear cut is about admins doing paid editing at all, let's say without the use of tools. This is a general concern that is larger than just my own case and the ongoing RfC seems to be the appropriate venue for a "WP:Paid editing policy" to be hashed out. "Whether admins can engage in paid editing" is a question both you and I would much like to see the community agree on, sooner than later, for everyone's sake. I'm not saying "no" and/or "yes" to a new RfA and/or to resigning adminship to continue paid editing and/or to ceasing paid editing to continue admin duties and/or to retiring altogether right at this minute because I don't like making hasty, emotion-driven decisions in the middle of turmoil, but I'm not closing the door definitively on any option. And neither am I dismissing or disregarding your feedback. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect that re: time, but the concerns aren't just that you were paid to edit. It's that you intentionally went around our guidelines in a way that seems aimed to look like it's in line with our norms here but actually might constitute paid advocacy meatpuppetry. That is a major concern. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a major fuckup. There's been worse, of course, but still. A major fuckup. Failing to realize what I saw as good-faithed collaboration amongst friends basically amounted to paid editing meatpuppetry. No avoiding that. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Salvidrim!: - you should also withdraw your reviewer status from AfC. To both Salvidrim and @Soetermans: full transparency would go a long way toward earning forgiveness. In other words, either of both of you could write up a couple of pages on what it is like to work for a paid editing firm? how you made contact? how assignments were made, how do you get paid? where you got your sources for the articles? were new sources created - i.e. published in "RS" just so they could be included? Get down to the nitty-gritty details and we'll all learn something.

    As far as a "WP:Paid editing policy", I'll suggest anybody who wants to start a discussion. It might be added to WP:Paid editing disclosure or simply refer to it. The obvious things to include are:

    • the bright line rule (no editing by paid editors in article space), which is a long time part of WP:COI - but almost everybody - including admins - seems to think they can ignore just because it is "just a guideline".
    • no paid use of advanced tools
    • (feel free to add some more here - but the simpler the better in order to get it passed)

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smallbones Soetermans has been beautiful after all this emerged. Very upfront and completely understands what they did wrong. Please go read their TP. And Primefac withdrew the AfC privilege from Soutermans arlready -- that is done. In my view the only remaining issues are those around Salvidrim and progress on that is happening all above and below... Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Until English Wikipedia adopts an Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies (here are specific directions on how to do that), the currently enforced policy is Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which specifically says that of the details surrounding the paid editing, it is only required is that you disclose your employer, client, and affiliation. If EnWiki ends up adopting a stricter policy, then so be it. I don't intend on writing essays on the topic. However, some "nitty-gritty" details: contact was via e-mail & facebook, payments through paypal, we're talking amounts around 10$ to 20$, and lastly I can't speak about "where you get your sources" since at this time I haven't actually edited any article content against payment. Your assessment that "no mainspace paid editing is a brightline rule" also seems to be inaccurate, as the current "strongly discouraged" wording versus your perceived "clearly disallowed" spirit has been the subject of countless debates in the past that haven't resulted in "disallowing mainspace paid edits altogether" (I could be wrong on this, please point out the consensus if there is one I haven't found). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Salvidrim!, I understand that this is a position you have held for a long time perhaps, but please step back from that for a minute and think about it, especially in light of this shitstorm and what you wrote above about being human and even you being affected by COI and about rigorously following the policies and guidelines around your paid editing work. The COI guideline is very clear that people with a COI are very strongly discouraged from editing directly, and should put edits through prior review on the talk page of existing articles or through AfC for new articles. What you are going through, is exactly why. This is an essential part of COI management in WP and protects everyone. Disclosure + prior review in light of the disclosure. It is also the standard in academic publishing. Please reconsider your position on this. Please. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, hey, sorry if I wasn't clear enough above -- I would actually support a proposal to change the policy from "strongly discourage mainspace paid edits" to "definitively disallow mainspace paid edits", especially in light if the experience I went through which has somewhat opened my eyes to the fact that even the bestest of intentions doesn't absolve one from having to carefully manage COI. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is lived policy for much of the community. Yes we need to get it that condensed into writing. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Their website explicitly begins With 10+ years of experience on Wikipedia. Assuming they're not lying about that figure, I can only see three possibilities; either:
      1. Despite their "full disclosure" claim, whoever's behind this is in fact an experienced Wikipedia editor who isn't disclosing their edits;
      2. One of the three paid editors Jytdog has named here as admitting connections to this site is actually operating the site, and hasn't disclosed that fact;
      3. This is a reboot of an earlier (and likely banned) paid-editing farm, given a fresh coat of paint.
    None of these alternatives is very pleasant, and unless I've missed something extremely obvious there's something extremely dubious going on here. While I opposed the change to the Terms of Use and have long been firmly in the "better to allow it and have it out in the open" camp, I recognize that the community disagree with me. I can't see any permutation of possibilities here in which someone, somewhere, isn't acting in extreme bad faith; if the rest of us are expected to comply with policies regardless of whether we personally agree with them, this particular gang should be expected to as well. ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly sure what he touts as "10+ years of experience" is just a way to say "we work with editors who have 10+ years of experience" but I agree that choice of words is very poor. For having personally interacted with the guy behind MisterWiki, I can tell you he's definitely not a Wikipedia editor but is a very much identified young guy working PR in the music industry (and others). I wouldn't have agreed to work with unknown or unidentified parties. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Timeline

    The actual timeline goes like this.

    • 12 October, other editor submits Datari article (probably paid, we haven’t talked about this person)
    • 12 October, submission declined
    • 16 October Soetermans starts working on the Datari article
    • 19 October, Soetermans does the AfC “submit”

    (based on what Salvidrim wrote here and what Soetermans wrote here, Soetermans didn't want the client to have to wait so asked Salvidrim offline to review -- the quote from Soetermans was "I asked Salvidrim asked personally to okay the draft version of Datari Turner on October 20th so Turner, Mister Wiki and I didn't have to wait for a month for the article to be up again.”. But look at the actual timeline above...

    • 3:24 October 20 diff and diff Salvidrim accidentally (he says) reverted and then self-reverted the disclosure of paid editing on Soetermans userpage.
    Meant to hit thanks, accidentally hit Rollback. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3:27 October 20 Salvidrim accepts the AfC submission - note that there was no PAID disclosure on the article, and Salvidrim placed at the TP in this diff
    • Note that Salvidrim says here and here that he had been in no contact with Mister Wiki directly before then.
    (and also on Salvidrim! (paid) now Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    • Nov 1 Salvidrim created the Savidrim! (paid) account and granted pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, page mover and confirmed user rights to his new paid account with edit note confirming my legit alt (intentionally not giving autopatrol since that has been controversial in the past) (TonyBallioni noted this)
    • 1 Nov Salvidrim disclosed that he was starting to work for Mister Wiki on Studio71 note — 6 Nov Salvidrim uploads the Mister Wiki logo to WP and adds the branding to his disclosure page. he is all in, apparently.
    • Nov 1 Salvidim (paid) uses the page mover right to move client's page to preferred branding. (noted by TonyBallioni)
    • 21:36 25 Oct Izad (Studio71 executive) article created by WolvesS
    • 21:36 25 Oct Weinstein (Studio71 executive) article created by WolvesS
    • 2 Nov Weinstain tagged by JJMC89 for N
    (and NPOV Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    • 2 Nov Izad article tagged by JJMC89 for N
    (and NPOV Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    • 12 Nov Salvidrim discloses the two executives articles at his userpage
    • 12 Nov Salvidrim draftifies Weinstein article using page mover right
    • 12 Nov Salvidrim drafties Izad article using page mover right

    (this is apparently when the complaining about waiting happens on the facebook chat disclosed here)

    • The two bullets below are among the two that are most upsetting to me. Note this diligence on behalf of the client to get the tags removed, but zero diligence to protect AfC and indeed citing the corrupt AfC. And putting pressure on an independent editor who is looking out for the project. Upsetting.
      • 13:56 17 Nov Salvidrim asks JJMC89 at his talk page to remove the N tag, citing the AfC
      • 2:07 18 Nov Salvidrim follows up witih JJMC89
    FWIW, I expected JJMC89 to either tell me how he wanted the page fixed for the maintenance tag to be removed, or to take it to AfD, which is what he ended up doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 18 Nov JJMC89 nominates Izad for deletion
    • 18 Nov JJMC89 nominates Weinstein for deletion
    • 18 Nov salvidrim makes initial !vote at Izad article, notes his “integrity” and cites the AfC
    • 18 Nov Salvidrim makes 2nd comment at Izad article, again citing his reputation
    • 18/19 Nov Salvidrim makes initial !vote at AfD for Weinstein, notes his “integrity” and cites the AfC
    • 19 Nov Salvidrim makes 2nd comment at Weinstein AfD
    • 19 Nov JJMC89 notes on Jytdog TP that Salvidrim is editing for pay, for the list at VPP - that kicks off a dialogue with Salvidrim in which all this became clear
    • 19 Nov Jytdog asks at Izad AfD and asks at Weinstein AfD if Salvidrim is being paid for this AfD work
    • 19 Nov Salvidrim gives more-or-less yes answer at Izad and at Weinstein, discloses that the client wanted the tags removed and putting through AfC was Salvidrim’s solution
    • 19 Nov after figuring out the AfC timelines Jytdog noted at Weinstein AfD and at Izad AfD that AfC review was tainted
    • etc.

    5 bullets below added in this diff. Not sure this is the best outcome of these matters and am posting here so others can review. Also the continued and immediate lobbying by Salvidrim is hard to understand in light of everything that else that has been happening. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • 20:50 Nov 20, User:DGG starts to close the AfD and deletes the Izad article (that is a link to the deletion log). At the AfD DGG per the history hits a snag with the formatting in the AfD (Salvidrim had added a hat that messed up the closing bracketing).
    • Apparently DGG made a mistake using the deletion tool and deleted a bunch of stuff (see DGG deletion log)
    • 20:53 Nov 20 Salvidrim (not paid) opens discussion at DGG's talk page about the Afd formatting snag; see section here and that evolves into discussion about the mistake DGG made using the deletion tool, which also includes Salvidrim suggesting to undelete to keep redirects related to Studio71, which DGG agrees to do in the context of fixing the other errors (see deletion log above for the Izad thing)
    • 20:54 Nov 20 Salvidrim (paid) creates a redirect at the Izad article after DGG undeletes it. (so the talk page is deleted, the article page is not)
    • 21:02 Nov 20 Salvidrim (paid) added the pictures of the two executives to the Studio71 article.
    Your post just made me notice the Reza Izad revisions were mistakenly ALL restored. The intent was for it to be deleted, and a single revision for its recreation as a valid redirect to the article where he's mentioned. The other previous revisions should all be deleted per the AfD. (Obviously I won't fix it myself). The AfD closure then re-closure really made a mess of things for sure.
    As for the edit to Studio71, it wasn't paid or asked for, but I still think that there is no reason not to promote the use of good freely-licensed pictures in the article where the people depicted are mentioned (it's hardly uncommon for company articles to include freely-licensed pics of key founders), and I only did it with Salvidrim! (paid) due to the past association existing. I consider this remedial edit a form of apology for the mess and scrutiny that the two human article subjects had to go through by my fault, when they should have remained declined AfC drafts instead. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember the whole "judgement" thing that this all about? C'mon man. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also
    Thread at Soeterman's TP
    thread at my TP with Salvidrim
    thread at WolvesS' TP, which I have only just opened.
    No point reaching out to Jlauren22, the creator of the Datari article, as this is very clearly a throwaway sock.

    -- I also want to give kudos to User:JJMC89 who handled all this with a cool head and with grace. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And I will add. It is so mind-numbingly mundane to get drama from paid editors over fucking tags. All this fucking drama over fucking tags. And people trying to get fucking paid to remove fucking tags. What a waste of... everything. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone, I just had evening class and I'm heading home currently. I've been trying to follow the discussion. Are there any questions people want answered specifically? I'll try to reply tomorrow. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi - thanks for checking in. Not from me. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soetermans: I think Salvridimi completely misunderstood me above. I'd just like to get some basic facts about how paid editing works on Wikipedia, from the paid editor's side of things. Could you could write up a couple of pages on what it is like to work for a paid editing firm? how you made contact? how assignments were made, how do you get paid? where you got your sources for the articles? were new sources created - i.e. published in "RS" just so they could be included? Who did you contact at the paid editing firm? How much were you paid for an article? How many co-workers were you in contact with on-Wiki? What were your instructions? What were you told before you signed up? Did they mislead you on this?
    Do you now think there should be a clearer "WP:Paid editing policy"?
    Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Smallbones, sure, I don't mind. Where and how would you like to see it? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been sideways following both the discussion here and at Jyt's talk. So, after a good deal of thought, here's my down and dirty. Even if every single other aspect of the checks out as 100% above the table, Salvidrim! using their access to assign advanced rights to an account specifically registered to make paid contributions is an abuse of the tools. Full stop. Actually using them only makes it worse. No user who showed up at PERM with I'm a COI editor, and I'd please like some extra buttons so I can push them to make myself some money is going to get them. They wouldn't get them because no clear minded sysop is going to give it to them. This account got them here because we didn't have a clear minded sysop; we had a sysop with a conflict of interest. This alone is enough for me to strongly suggest resignation as an act of mercy to save us the trouble.
    Besides that, essentially I have a conflict of interest, but you can trust me because I'm a sysop, explicit or implied, is a flagrant abuse of position. COI does not have a good intentions clause. The question of your integrity is already settled when you decide to heavily weigh in on an AfD that you wouldn't have know about to begin with if you didn't have a COI. With only these two points considered, I would plead with you personally to resign, because I don't like ArbCom, I've never filed a case there ever, much less to desysop someone, and I would much rather never have to figure it out, but if no one else does, I will. GMGtalk 23:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your feedback. I don't believe I've ever said something analoguous to "I'm paid but trust me, I'm an admin", although of course it's impossible to avoid people gathering that fact implicitly. As for the rights I've granted my alt: Confirmed is standard and basically meaningless; rollback is a convenience (redundant with Twinkle which anyone can use); pending changes reviewer I agree should go (I didn't really give it a second thought), removed it now; autopatrol has alway been no-go (and with the "no direct mainspace creations" policy likely to pass soon, won't serve any purpose anyways); so I guess the only user right that really is the object of debate is page mover, which I can't see how paid editors could really abuse, the only usefulness in my eye is for draftifying pages without having to get someone else to G6 the leftover mainspace redirect, and perhaps moving drafts out of user sandbox and into draftspace without having leftovers in userspace. If the concern is user/draft moves to mainspace, that's not okay whether or not a redirect is left behind, meaning page mover has no impact. So if it's really a point of controversy I don't mind removing it and having to CSD leftovers, I just don't think it's a problem either way. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't accept this. Back-channel communication with spammers is a terrible idea. Especially for an admin who is also engaged in paid editing. I mean, really, objectively terrible. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What? What "backchannel communication with spammers"? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You directly executed a round-robin move on Studio 71 to Studio71. This is a stylization change, which is not an uncontroversial move (I've been taken to move reviews over periods in titles before.) This is what your client was branded as, yes, but that might not be what community consensus and our naming conventions determine that it should have been named. By granting yourself page mover access, you were able to bypass review of this move by other editors either at WP:RM/TR or at a full RM. This was a use of tools you granted your paid account from your personal admin account to bypass a community review process in order to make the page title match the preferred brand stylization of your clients. This was not just something that you did accidentally, you were specifically paid to execute that move, and had granted yourself page mover rights 4 minutes before making the disclosure that you were paid to move the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the fact I honestly believed the move to be totally uncontroversial similarly highlights how much I let the COI influence me despite beliving myself true and uninfluencable. I removed all user rights from the alt. Community processes provide absolutely necessary oversight which should not be bypassed by paid editors. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No, don't thank me. I'm not doing you a favor. I'm not doing anything that gives me any pleasure either. But I don't think you understand. What I am saying is that you have made a series of decisions that calls into serious question your ability to use the tools in an impartial and responsible manner, and a series of decisions that eliminates the confidence in your ability to exercise the measure of community trust given to you. I am not offering constructive feedback to help you improve yourself as a person or an editor. I'm certainly not offering feedback that will allow you to more effectively make personal gain off of Wikipedia while you hold one of the higher positions of community trust the project has to give.
    I am telling you that you will either resign the tools, or I will set in motion a discussion to have them taken away from you. The only acceptable responses are "Yes, I will resign the tools" or "No, you will have to take them away from me". GMGtalk 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My answer is that I don't think this single fuckup in which I wrongly believed myself "too good to mishandle COI" means I am incapable of fulfilling adequately the duties of an admin. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger that. GMGtalk 00:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    hey User:GreenMeansGo, I appreciate your passion on this. I do. My sense is that Salvidrim is looking at this mess (and I really think he is looking at it) and where it came from with respect to how he thought about himself and about how Wikipedia works, and is rethinking things... and he is doing that in public, and in the glare of a lot of attention. Which is really fucking hard. Please give this some time.... Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens I'm busy this week. Happy Thanksgiving. Should be plenty of time to consider where the priorities are. I'd like to find some answer that resolves this without me having to read for three hours about how to file an ArbCom case. An answer that involves both paid editing an the mop is not one that resolves this. GMGtalk 01:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Salvidrim!, would you be willing to pledge to completely and unconditionally abandon any paid or WP:COI editing, and not to use your admin rights in connection with any WP:COI editor? That might go a ways toward addressing some of the concerns raised here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exactly the question I have been asking myself. I'm likely going to end up doing just that, but please let me think over my shit for a day or two. I'd rather have a well-thought-through commitment than a hasty one. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you said you were busy @GreenMeansGo:, but would you care to share your thoughts on how acceptable you think this proposal to be? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you need to think about it, then block your paid account and remove all rights in the interim, but understand that the fact that you need to think about it means I've probably lost all respect for you for the foreseeable future. GMGtalk 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the fact I prefer to carefully think things through instead of taking rash emotional decisions makes you lose respect for me... whatever. Let me sleep on it at least. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    GMG really, there is no need for big drama. We can wait a few days. If you take some time and learn about Salvidrim you will see that this is not a small thing for him, to have this go so awry. On the bell curve of community opinion about paid editing, he has been -- very publicly (e..g here in an Arbcom election Q&A -- over on the positive-towards-it slope for a long time, and i think his lived experience has given him some things to think about. To really think about. Please give him space. Please. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, the fact that I'm surprised to find you on the other side of the argument actually makes me take your position more seriously. But I have to disagree nontheless. I think there is a precise and regrettable need for exactly this drama. I don't think I need to tell you this in particular, but maybe it helps to have it said.
    I am not at all comfortable with user with COIs having access to specifically OCRP, the admin toolkit, and AfC, in that order and across the board. Having someone actively use that access to further paid editing is beyond toleration in a way that involves little nuance. Trust is far and away our most valuable commodity. It's something we stockpile because it's what makes this thing work. It's valuable precisely because it's not for sale, and putting a price tag on it doesn't just affect individual users and articles; it affects the bedrock of trust.
    None of this is in the interest of attacking any individual. We've already lost one long time editor, probably permanently, and we seem certain to here to lose a sysop. No one wants to see these things happen, but it is an acceptable if lamentable loss if it is necessary to protect the integrity of trust, because the integrity of trust is more important than any one contributor. GMGtalk 12:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My remarks to you here have been just asking for you and other folks to not make immediate demands on Salvidrim nor to escalate immediately. Two reasons for that -- the first is to give Salvidrim time to think, and the second is because we don't know what he will come back with, per my note below. While what has happened in the past is very clear (and I ~think~ we have laid out all the key events and interactions, but I should spend some more time to see if i have missed anything), the question of what Salvidrim intends to do in the future is something that everybody in the community will be thinking about and will change how this looks in the eyes of the community. It will. That is how this place works.
    In general, when the community considers taking actions against editors (blocks, bans, and i would say even removal of privileges) it is about preventing future harm. I brought KDS4444 to AN because he had no insight into the problems he was causing - he didn't understand COI and what it was doing to him when he edited under it nor why people were reviewing his paid edits -- and the disruption over managing his ever-growing pile of COI edits was never going to stop in my view. With regard to what he did at OTRS, future damage was prevented by removing his access, and the harm he caused WP in the eyes of the people with whom he interacted there cannot be redeemed... but what bothered me the most was the place in him from which the decision was made to abuse OTRS that way. That was unredeemed as well. I don't want a person like that in the community.
    If Salvidrim comes back here and says that he will give up paid editing and he really sees all the harm he has caused, and "the lights are on" with respect to the place in him where these bad judgementa and actions came from, I don't think I will support a desysop. The way I think about people, I trust people more who make mistakes and are able to a) see the mistake, and b) see why they made the mistake; c) can articulate that clearly and without bullshit.
    I do get it that for some people what Salvidrim has done is an irredeemable breach of trust and they want his bit stripped no matter what decision he comes back with.
    I also think that if he wants to keep the bit, him doing that by resigning it and getting re-certified through an RfA is probably the best thing for him and the community.
    If he wants to keep the bit and won't voluntarily resubmit to RfA, and this becomes an Arbcom case, a lot will depend on how the case is brought and conducted (will it be "hey look at this" or "you must strip his bit!") and there are serious risks in my view (i think about risks a lot and try to manage them!). First, if it becomes ugly and antagonistic, it will probably harm relationships among editors here long term. Second if the outcome is that he keeps the bit, it risks confusing and de-solidifying the community consensus around these specific issues. And third, there has always been a faction of the community that doesn't care about paid editing (it is getting smaller and weaker in my view) but one of their lines of arguments is that people who do care about it are moralistic witch hunters who themselves cause disruption. If he comes back "with the lights on" and the Arbcom case gets ugly, and he keeps the bit at the end of the case, that line will be able to sing much louder. Which in my view is not good for the long-term effort to move community consensus toward stronger and more clear COI management. (and all these risks of badness are why i think Salvidrim should voluntarily resign the bit and go through a new RfA - if he decides to keep it and won't do that, I think there will be an Arbom or some other case ... and this is really not good for anybody and will require yet more time on this matter. I am very much hoping he sees this)
    Of course if there is an Arbcom case it could be conducted well and ends in a way that clarifies and consolidates consensus too.
    Those are the kinds of things I am thinking about. Lots of "ifs" on top of other "ifs". But very much with an eye to long term movements in community consensus around COI management and paid editing, as well as what is best in this specific situation. Trying to think through all those things. We all look at things differently.
    But more than anything, we should just be waiting at this point, and discussing various options if people want to. Not making demands or escalating ... not until Salvidrim comes back and lets us know his intentions for the future. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are, at this point, more than a dozen calling for a resignation. Most after my own comments, but my comments stand on their own, and I would have no qualms about being a lone standard bearer were it the case. There is no resolution to this month long sustained poor decision making that is not a resignation or an ArbCom thread. If they want to stop paid editing, then they are welcome to do so, regain the community trust, and get it back. But there is no world in which we allow someone to have the bit when it's not even clear they can be trusted to have access to AfC, and were this not a sysop, they probably would have already lost AfC as well as OTRS without a thought. I'm sorry they made the decision that their standing in the community was worth a few dollars, but that's the decision they made, and have repeatedly not seen any issues with glaring problems until they are spelled out for them in grotesque detail. GMGtalk 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he is horrified with what he has done now that he sees it. Being human is weird that way - we can do that to ourselves. I agree that an Arbcom case is very likely if he doesn't voluntarily resign the bit. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reiterating my earlier note for all parties in this thread so it doesn't come as a surprise: I'm planning to write up this case and the paid editor/OTRS case for the upcoming Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know when your deadline is, but if it's got at least a few days, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have that haven't been adressed here. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative three days, officially. I guess nothing at this time, maybe after you make your decision on what next steps to take. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask everybody to make sure you have read this diff and this diff by Salvidrim, in the midst of this flood of words. I think this thread is kind of done until we hear back from him. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the discussion is "done". While disclosed paid editing by administrators is still a grey area, engaging in the further previously undisclosed activities and favors as Salvadrim has done, even if he now agrees he fucked up, means he has for all intents and purposes probably lost the community's trust. I think that would be how this would play out if it went to AN, ANI, or ArbCom. This is especially true of someone who ran for RfB four months ago under a platform of "what the hell". Why run for RfB? Was he a paid editor at that time? My sense is that if this whole scenario went to AN, ANI, or ArbCom, what would happen for Salvadrim would be a de-sysop and a topic ban from AfC and NPP. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear that, totally. But the situation is not stable right now. (please just have a look at his current userpage, for example) Please consider --Salvidrim might come back here and say - "I intend to keep on editing for pay, and I want to keep my admin bit." He might say - "I am going to stop editing for pay and I will not start again without getting prior consensus. Please forgive my breach of trust and let me earn it back." He might say, "I am giving up my bit and becoming a paid editor." Or something very different. I think folks will have very different responses to each of those, don't you?
    (btw, I didn't say "done", I said "kind of done until we hear back from him."...) Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the ball is in his court, but at the end of the day the situation boils down to this: did Salvidrim! in his actions cause a breach of the community's trust in such a way that in order to function as an administrator he needs to show he still has it through a new RfA. I think he has, and that he should resign and resubmit to an RfA with all of this out in the open if he thinks he still has the community's trust. If he thinks this isn't necessary, the only forum that can resolve that question is the Arbitration Committee.
    This is true even if he says he will not edit for pay in the future, because a breach of trust did occur on the meatpuppetry and the assigning himself user rights which were used to bypass community processes for actions he was directly paid to make. I don't want to pile on, and I do respect that he is taking this seriously and is thinking about all of his possible responses. I also appreciate how focused you are on him as a person, Jytdog, which is something we sometimes miss in these discussions. I don't think we can have much more conversation here about what to do until he lets us know what he is thinking, but I also think it is important to him to make clear that it is very possible that the next step from here is an arbitration case request: AN or ANI really can't do anything in regards to the trust question. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Briefly, I think this is a good plan: resign sysop and stand for new RfA. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with TonyBallioni here. Paid editors reviewing and accepting each other's AFC submissions shows a serious lapse of judgment that I think is incompatible with the community trust required to remain an admin - and I think the only honorable response here is to resign the admin bit and re-run for RFA. (And I'll echo Tony's suggestion that, failing that, an arb case request seems likely.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I too agree with TonyBallioni, and echo the calls for a resignation of the bit and a re-rerun at RfA. I have no trust in the editor, and their access to OTRS is now concerning (given we've all been shown how easy it is to solicit work from there) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll keep this brief because I said enough over the KDS4444 issue that resulted in an indef block and ban: In no way is holding advanced rights of any kind compatible with editing for money or reward or helping anyone else to do it. It would be putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. It dosn't matter what good he might have done for the project, Salvidrim! has lost the trust that was invested in him as an admin - just for starters - and any other trust as an editor has gone with it. The choice is clear, either he hands all his tools in, or Arbcom will do it for him and the end result there may even be a block and a ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On the nature of paid editing

    Hi everyone,

    Just for readability's sake I'm going to start a subsection in this discussion. I've been thinking a lot about paid editing and COI. I'm not trying to be melodramatic here, but my reputation on Wikipedia is important to me. I've been talking with @Jytdog on the matter on my talk page, and I agree, I completely fucked up with the AfC thing, thinking that notability would somehow take precedence over neutrality and transparancy. One of my paid articles, Datari Turner, is up for deletion; @Smartse said they're wondering about the notability of the articles on John and Sam Shahidi. To try and avoid any confusion or any other repercussions, I have some questions.

    • WP:COI says that "COI editing is strongly discouraged", and WP:PAY says that paid editors are "very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". Instead, paid editors should use {{request edit}} or by posting a note here at COIN. Instead of being actually paid to edit, paid editors would get paid to ask others to do the editing for them. For instance, I've been asked to expand and update the article on Norwegian design duo Arne & Carlos (see diff). That took me a little while to get done, and I think it would be unfair to ask other editors to do the work for me and me getting paid for their work. Is there another possible way to communicate any paid edits? What about using drafts first? Or a "paid articles for creation"?
    • What is the use of a COI maintenance template, when it's already established that there's paid editing been done? The documentation says "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." WP:WTRMT No. 6 says "Some neutrality-related templates, such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed". Should there be an additional discussion, even when a paid editor has disclosed they have been to do paid editing on the article?
    • I fucked up with the AfC situation. For my actual paid edits, I have been transparent about them, and I've tried to be neutral and objective while writing them. Now I'm wondering, is it actually possible for an experienced editor to do paid editing? It's not even that I want to do paid editing at this point -- I've been an editor for over ten years and were paid to edit seven articles since October 2017 and there's this whole mess -- but there are plenty of people and companies out there that are notable by Wikipedia's standards, but don't have any volunteer writing about them. I thought I could help improve Wikipedia, help them out and make a little money on the side. I thought I did. I'm honestly asking, because I don't know anymore. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    thinking that notability would somehow take precedence over neutrality and transparancy I don't think this is the most important point, but I'd like to point out that both articles you reviewed would have taken me two minutes to decline as non-notable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. With those AfC moves, I wasn't being payed (I wasn't even asked to do so by Mister Wiki), but I wanted to help Salvidrim! out. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Soetermans: I'll just say that it is possible to do paid editing. Not ideal, but possible. But it does mean that your actions are in some way presumed to be potentially compromised, and it requires oversight (of the ordinary type, not WP:OVERSIGHT) by someone who is impartial. It also means that you should not be involved in functions that involve that oversight capacity, as AfC does. The real problem with COI not not necessarily malicious bad faith editors out to abuse Wikipedia. Those are fairly common and usually exceptionally easy to spot. The more difficult problem is that a COI can make good faith editors do corrosive things unknowingly and with the best intentions. I think that, more than anything, is probably what happened here, and all this is a good example of how paid editing is possible, but doesn't mix well with also being a volunteer who at some level occupies a position of respect. GMGtalk 13:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for assuming good faith towards me. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The COI template is a request for an independent person to fully review the content in question. As the quality of paid editing is generally very poor this is generally required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soetermans:(edit conflict) I think it would be unfair to ask other editors to do the work for me and me getting paid for their work. This is a very valid question. Take a read of WP:BOGOF ("buy one get one free") for Bri's take on it. As you noted, {{request edit}} is available, but don't expect a quick response!
    Templates are primarily there to alert the reader to potential problems. The fact that paid editing has been disclosed means that there can be no dispute about the relevance of adding {{coi}} and there is no need to explain why it is necessary. In other cases the coi may be less clear and rquires a note to explain. Even if there are no obvious problems with the current content, unless the subject has been researched by another editor it's impossible to know whether or not the article is written from a NPOV. Obviously that takes time...
    It certainly is possible for an experienced editor to write for pay, but you have to tread very carefully and be aware that some editors consider it distasteful, regardless of policies and guidelines. CorporateM was pretty successful, but saying that he was hounded away from editing in the end. I understand how you can see this could be a win-win, but the volunteer time that is required to ensure that content is neutral is considerable and inevitably when we have money on our minds, judgement is compromised - poor sources are more likely to be used, notability standards lowered and content leers towards promotion. I don't think that there is anyway round that. SmartSE (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOGOF makes perfect sense, even when it's done by a disclosed paid editor. Other editors still need to double-check if the article is at all notable, or if it has any promotional/advertesing tone to it. So WP:PAY, in my opinion, is a bit vague. Paid editors are strongly encouraged not to edit COI articles directly, but can request edits. It's almost like paid editors are more like paid Wikipedia lobbyists. Does that make any sense at all?
    Well, the COI maintenance template goes back to the first point, in that other editors still need to check the article. I get that. While I can proclaim I'm being as objective as possible, there's still a COI.
    If paid editing is possible, I think it can only be done with extreme patience. How does the community feel about only allowing drafts for paid edits, for COIN to go over? I know this still sounds like the community and COIN still has to do more work, but in that case, there's direct oversight. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I'm sorry, but this, just yesterday, is just taking the piss. Context: Special:Undelete/OverTheTop, Special:Undelete/OverTheTopSEO, Special:Undelete/OverTheTopSEO.com, Special:Undelete/OverTheTop (company), Special:Undelete/Over The Top (company), Special:Undelete/Over The Top (digital agency), Special:Undelete/Over The Top (digital marketing), User:Larddwe, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scorpion293, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesflare, User:Simonconrads, User:Willo523, User:Lizziehnazo.
    Blacklisted and regex salted. MER-C 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I actually had done some research first, I would've known that trying to create an article on Sheetrit was near impossible. I understand how that might've come across, and I apologize. As you can see from my contributions, I decided to hold off on making any possible COI edits after this statement, including Arne & Carlos, which I was still working on. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to paid editing, our readers expect us to be independent of the topics we write about. If we become less and less independent our reputation will be harmed. Paid editing thus does not risk harming **just** your reputation it risks harming the reputation of all of us, and thus why many of us are against those with advanced privileges being allowed to take up the practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Salvidrim

    Not going to make any resignation announcement today, or tomorrow, or this week. See User:Salvidrim!. I'd be happy to come to an agreement on some level of community sanctions w/r/t paid editing (such as no more paid edits, no approving paid AfCs/edit-requests/PERM-requests or whatever else needs to be agreed upon) but many commenters above have said there were not interested in discusing that: they want desysopping by shame or by force. I still don't think the COI mishandling (resulting in the AfC collusion or alt-perm assignment) requires desysopping; the AfC collusion could have happened with or without the admin tools, and the alt-perm mistake was acknowledged and reverted (and not particularly griveous or requiring an emergency desysop). I don't think there was a pattern of abuse of tools of behaviour unbecoming of an admin (which is what ArbCom usually looks for). I do think there was a mishandling and underestimating of how strongly and openly COI needs to be tackled and reviewed, and am happy to discuss what restrictions should be put in place to ensure it doesn't become a recurrent problem. This is probably the last I'll say for a while on-wiki unless there is agreement to resolve this with community sanctions (to be agreed upon), or if I end up having to defend at ArbCom. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DeviceLock

    I've cleaned up all the articles in mainspace from this person's spamming. Obviously here to promote the company. I have tried to open a discussion, but crickets so far.

    I've nominated devicelock.com for the spamblacklist but until that goes through I don't want to get into edit warring with this person. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I will be keeping my watch on the user'd contributions.No worries:)Winged Blades Godric 09:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew McIntosh (professor)

    I removed some predatory journals fomr this article two days ago. Up pops WikiJonathanpeter, who has not edited since March, to revert. I reverted, and in comes Ipadmasterman, with his grand total of four previous edits, all back in July, to revert again. I smell socks. Oh, note that WikiJonathanpeter's few other article edits are all to biblical topics. McIntosh is notorious as a creationist. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever you think of the guy or the credibility of the source is irreverent. The source was written by the guy and expresses his view. This is the best evidence you'll get for ones view. Whatever you think of the guy, please be humble and let his views be expressed WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What I think is, actually, relevant, because unlike you I am independent of the subject. This is now at WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created as a Coatrack a while ago. I and another guy set out to change it. Unfortunately, there are those who would want to get back the article to how it use to be. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that User:WikiJonathanpeter has been blocked for socking, but not User:Ipadmasterman Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking is not what is going on here. User:WikiJonathanpeter is a separate entity that I have no connection with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipadmasterman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-The article seems to be good, at least as of now.Has watchlisted.Winged Blades Godric 09:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It might seem good, but it still lists one publication in a predatory journal. We should not be driving traffic to these abusive firms. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Luke Harding

    I note that the user DinaNagapetyants who removed the section about the proven plagiarism by the professional anti-Russian journalist Luke Harding, a plagiarism that was admitted and apologised for by the Guardian, where the plagiarised material was published, is herself a writer for the Guardian who co-wrote an anti-Russia article with Mr Harding.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/natalia-potanina-vladimir-potanin-ex-wife-russia-richest-men-divorce

    Surely this conflict of interest should have been declared at the very least? It's a clear abuse in my opinion: censorship of an embarrassing but obviously notable fact - because proven and well-sourced (see the talk page) plagiarism by a notable journalist is always notable - by a person who 1) professionally collaborates with the article's subject in his explicitly partisan (in Mr Harding's case, anti-Russian) journalistic discourse, 2) by co-writing articles for the same employer who 3) published the plagiarism and apologised for it, and 4) without this clear non-neutrality being disclosed.

    To be clear, Dina Nagapetyants has two undisclosed conflicts here, her relationship with the Guardian and her relationship with Mr Harding.

    Consider this a complaint against Dina Nagapetyants as well as a request for the reinstatement of the suppressed material in some form. I think Dina Nagapetyants should also disclose if she discussed her edits of Mr Harding's page with Mr Harding.

    Dina Nagapetyants has also made her pro-Harding bias clear on her talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DinaNagapetyants where she rejects criticism (not from me) of her evident bias on the Luke Harding article. For example: "for his recent book Mr. Harding has received universal acclaim" - an egregiously sycophantic claim that is factually false - no partisan work receives universal acclaim.

    121.72.181.139 (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DinaNagapetyants made only about 50 edits from June 6 - June 15, 2016 and hasn't edited since. I doubt we can do anything that addresses your complaint against her. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right, but the section about plagiarism was removed and never replaced. Not brilliant sourcing, but evidently two sources - Private Eye and Newsweek have noted plagiarism. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic fatigue syndrome article — longstanding editor Sciencewatcher has a potential COI

    The Wikipedia article on the disease myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) has for many years been an area for edit disputes, due to the controversial nature and circumstances of this disease. Given the controversy, one would consider it prudent to check whether any of the regular editors might have conflicts of interest. Thus on the article talk page (where COIs are usually discussed), I asked two of the longstanding regular editors of the ME/CFS article whether they have any potential conflicts of interest, which is a legitimate and important question. The text of the ensuing discussion on the ME/CFS talk page can be found here. This link is a diff link (sciencewatcher has deleted one of my comments on the talk page, but the diff link contains all the comments).

    Note that I am not a Wikipedia editor and I am not involved with the editing of the ME/CFS article, but thought it would be a good idea to ask the regular editors of the ME/CFS article (those who have been editing it for many years) whether they might have a COI.

    One regular editor (Doc James) was happy to provide a clear statement that he has no COI, which settled that matter simply and easily. However, the other regular editor (sciencewatcher) refused to provide any statement regarding possible COIs, even though he was asked several times. This raised some suspicion, and so I made some background checks, and found that sciencewatcher does indeed possess potential COIs: sciencewatcher has a published academic study (as a single independent researcher), a published book (available to buy on Amazon) and a website which all clearly advocate what is termed the psychogenic view of chronic fatigue syndrome.

    The heart of the controversy about ME/CFS are the two competing views of the aetiology this disease: the view that ME/CFS is a psychogenic "all in the mind" condition versus the view that ME/CFS is a biologically-caused organic disease. Thus the fact that sciencewatcher has something of an external career as a promotor of the psychogenic view, and is selling a book expounding and advocating this psychogenic view, would appear to introduce a potential COI, especially in an area like ME/CFS which is surrounded by controversy.

    When I put it to sciencewatcher that he has a book for sale on Amazon advocating the psychogenic view of ME/CFS, he completely denied this. But I know for fact that he does have such a book for sale, and can provide a weblink to it. So he appears to be trying to cover up this potential COI on the talk pages.

    In order not to reveal identity, I will not post here any weblinks to his academic study, his book for sale on Amazon, and his website, but I will send those links, as well as the real life identity of sciencewatcher, to you by email if required.

    Thus this is a request for COIN to look into this case, and consider whether these circumstances surrounding sciencewatcher represent a COI. 46.208.234.40 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't seem to have provided any evidence here, just your own bad-faith (WP:AGF) speculation. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by evidence? I can provide links to his book, website etc, on request.
    Good faith was indeed assumed, and any statement by sciencewatcher declaring no COIs would have been accepted on good faith. However, sciencewatcher repeatedly refused to provide such a statement. Since it is simple and straightforward to make such a COI statement, and would have settled the matter there and then, it was perplexing that sciencewatcher should refuse to give one. On investigation, I discovered he had written a book which is for sale that expounds the same psychogenic views that he advocates on the Wikipedia chronic fatigue syndrome article (as well as several other Wikipedia articles in which the same psychogenic vs organic controversy exists), which may in itself constitute a COI. sciencewatcher then lied about not having such a book (which does make one wonder whether good faith is appropriate in this case), and he has still not been courteous enough to volunteer a statement regarding whether he has COIs or not. 46.208.234.40 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Twelve pings to science watcher in two posts seems like wp:badgering and wp:harrassment to me. You've had your answer at the talk page, and still provided no evidence. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a "ping"?
    Roxy, Zalophus californianus. you don't seem that experienced in these COIN cases, judging by the absence of your username in the history page, so it would be nice to hear from people who are more experienced, who might also be kind enough to answer my question regarding what is evidence, which you didn't. At the top of this page, is says "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality." That is my concern, and the reason I posted here. So I am asking the more experienced people here to look into whether sciencewatcher may be using Wikipedia to promote his own interests at the expense of neutrality. 46.208.234.40 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A ping is what you did to me above, causing me to be notified at the top of any page I visit on the project that somebody has mentioned me. You dont get pings because you dont use an account. you sent twelve pings to sciencewatcher. Hint:- count the number of times you linked sciencewatcher's name in your two posts above. as to the rest of your bad faith comments. Aha haha, hahaha. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=811450661&oldid=811448060

    Leave a Reply